NationStates Jolt Archive

It's simple. No God, no way of turning against or away from God. You can't "turn away" from something that's not there.

It is not disbelief in a word, as you suggest. Sin, for the non-believer in the Abrahamic God, is a non-issue.

Not of itself, but when you examine the type of behaviour and thought patterns a sin is defined as, no one here can say they havnt sinned.

We follow gods will or else

For the [Large number] time, salvation is not based on our reaction to God's will. It is based on our reaction to sin. Either to ignore it or to do something about it.

Thanks! Oh, by the way, feel free to use it, but if you could keep the names Steve, Claire and Brian in, that would be awesome. Hehe...

As for the rest of your post, I see nothing to argue with save to point out, yet again, that the Northern Ireland issue is Cultural, not Religious. They simply take the names Catholic and Protestant because those are the official denominations of the countries they claim to represent. 'cept Ian Paisley. And he thinks he is God.

Just keep checking things out. Even if you don't decide, you'll be a highly informed Agnostic, which is a benefit in itself. Goes down well at parties, I'll tell you. Or maybe that's just the sort of parties I go to. ^^;


Kamsaki, I'd love to use your analogy verbatim, but I have a hard time remembering names /:

As for Northern Island, I stand corrected. Just what kind of parties do you go to? I'd like to stick around at one of them, but only if you tell me how many times the cops have been called :D

If you ask ME what 'sin' is, I'll tell you it's short for 'sine' as in the ratio of the opposite and hypotenuse of a right triangle.

Funny how Christians always take direct offense at Atheism. I always wondered about it. But shhh, no one wanted to hear that anyway, aye?

"hey you, non-believer, you're wrong! Read these books and convert yourselves before it's too late." Why? Because I've stood in the background, and I've studied all three of the main monotheist religions. They all believe in the same God, but strange thing is that one is waiting for their Messiah to come, one says it's already here. One says Jesus is the main prophet, the other says Mohammed is the main prophet while Jesus is just... a prophet. You've got a one in three chance of getting God's main will right.

This is the problem I have with the two other religions. Jeudaism ignores just how accurately Jesus fufills the propheices made to them about their Messiah made in the Old Testement. And Islam basicly founds its entire faith on the visitations of God to one man in a cave. Some people say Christianity is unreliable because of only having four accounts, but I say that one account of a man on his own is even less reliable surely?


And then there are the fights between these people who believe in the same God. There are the Northern Ireland battles between Christians, there were the Crusades, there is the battle for the Gaza Strip.You'd think God would try to end the bloodshed and the anger by setting people straight, somehow. Or maybe he's just sitting back,happy that people are fighting over him, even if they just worship him differently.

We have already established that the reason that God doesnt interfere about this type of thing is free will.


I don't understand how we're said to have been given free will if we have to confess our sins and go to mass. I don't see how he can allow such attempts at converting non-Christians. We have a free will, don't we? So why are we God's lambs-sheep, and why are there people chasing after me telling me I'll be sent to hell because I don't believe?

To deal with a few of your points, you dont have to go to mass to be a Christian, in the same way you dont go to McDonalds and become a Hamburger. Secondly we have free will because God wanted us to love him. However love logically requires a choice, if you somehow "forced" or "coersesd" someone into loving you then it wouldnt be real love because thats not what love is.


Religion began as a scapegoat for phenomena not understood and it has evolved to extreme capacities over time. There are so many of them and they're all similar in so many ways. Others, like Buddhism just seem to be a bit more logical, so if I do decide to become religious, you'll excuse me if I don't choose to become a Christian

See, I never buy this "religion=way for describing natural phonomna" lark, for this reason. Say we said "God made the world" and then a few centuries later science comes along and says "Actually the world was made by x y and z processes". The fact that we know how the world was made does not nessecarly detract from the fact that he made it. Furthermore, the notions of sin, and salvation do not come from any observence of natural phonomna.

God seeks the destruction of those faiths, even at the expense of those who follow them. Therein is my problem; without the labels, many people could be said to be doing God's work through the genuine aid and teaching of mankind. And yet, we hear that even despite this, because they do not consider themselves followers of Christ, they will be allowed to drop into the fire.

Firstly, no God does not seek the destruction of other faiths. Secondly, as I have said before salvation is not based on what you do in this life, it is based on your response to sin. In order for it to be based on this life we would have to match up to God's standards. And God's standards are perfection. No sin at all. Now God is aware that obviously humans cant do that now, because of sin so he sent Jesus to create another way.


When God lets a Buddhist into heaven, and when Christianity accepts the liklihood of that happening, I will join you. Until then, you will not be able to convince me that by accepting a logo other than "Christ", we are deserving of whatever punishment befalls us.

Its not deserving and hell is not a punishment. Its the natural result of sin. The natural result of rebellion against God (sin) is to go to hell. Now God has created a way for people to avoid that, but they have to choose it. He cant force people to go into it. Chrisitanity as a faith granted is not just about salvation, but if you want to know how salvation works, I am describing it to you. Ultimately you will not be judged by your actions on this earth, but by your response to sin. Do you try to do something about it by accepting Jesus and trying to live the life he set out, or do you ignore it.


Ultimately, the best response to how good or bad you are is to fight back the evil within you and encourage the good within you to grow and be shared with those around you, and that response is not the sole property of Christianity. If you have a better response than that, I'd be glad to consider it.

I agree with you, that is the best way to lead your life, but it is not how we are judged by God at the end. That is the way God wants us to lead our lives, but no matter how "good" a life you lead, sin cannot be removed by doing good works.


I don't think "Kill, repent, kill, repent, kill, repent" is what would be called a decent response to sin. And yet, by all accounts, that's an entirely accepted one;

I'm not sure where you got that idea from but it isnt. You have to respond to the fact that sin was a problem for you by attempting now to stop sinning. Have you ever heard of the idea that every sin is another splinter off the cross into Jesus's back?

If you can say, quite confidently, that Buddhists can receive the same reward as Christians in the life hereafter without surrendering the Buddhist philosophy, then I will have no problem joining and even advertising your organisation. It's your problem with the alternate, viable and beneficial philosophies of the world that I have a problem with, and if you realise that your problem is entirely unnecessary, my problem will no longer exist.


Buddhists can receive the same rewards as Christians in the life hereafter without surrendering the buddhist phiosphy totally. There are 5 basic tenants to becoming a Christian

1) Accepting that you have sinned
2) Accepting that you yourself, no matter how hard you work or how good you are cannot deal with the ulitmate consequences of those sins
3) Accept that there is a God who can and has saved you via Jesus's death on the cross
4) Ask that same God to save you, by forgiving your sins
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin

Buddhists only have one belief that I can see which contridicts this directly and that is Reincarnation.

Not of itself, but when you examine the type of behaviour and thought patterns a sin is defined as, no one here can say they havnt sinned.
I have never sinned. I have yet to pity anyone.

My countrymen and my family have lived for 4000 years without repenting our sins to God. I see no reason to change course.

*snip*


Basically, you're saying that God is giving you, as a Christian, free will in choosing how you believe in him. Strangely enough, you seem to go against that by saying we're wrong for not believing in him and thus trying to convert the majority of agnostics. I'm using my 'free will', and you're using yours.

And your calling my natural phenomena (I don't know how YOU pronounce the word) statement a lark. You're pretending that I'm directing all my thoughts at Christianity alone, but no. I'm not. I'm talking about the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Chinese. They 'made' gods 'up', saying that there was a god of the earth, a god of the trees, a god of the wind. They didn't know that the wind is created because of the uplift of warm air, so they said that there was a god who controlled the wind. Monotheism is fairly new, so don't call anything regarding ancient religions a lark unless you have any evidence that doesn't involve God.

The way you are acting, saying it's wrong for me to even think that Judaism and Islam might be correct, makes me say 'screw it. I'm going to believe in Circe and Zeus, in Apollo and Aeolus.' I have problems with all of the religions. I don't really care about the integrity of any prophet's accounts. I care that there are so many different variations of monotheism, and especially of Christianity.

If God gave me free will because he wanted me to love him, that still doesn't explain why I've been approached by missionaries telling me I have to repent. If he sent them, if they're carrying out God's will, then why is my free will being affected.

And Bhuddism isn't saying I sinned. There's a difference between suffering and sinning. And suppose they're the same thing. The four noble truths imply that we can be free of 'sins'. I believe it is the third that says 'attatchment can be overcome' and the second states 'suffering is due to attatchment'. Put that together, and you will see that Buddhism actually says 'you don't have to have sinned'.

Firstly, no God does not seek the destruction of other faiths. Secondly, as I have said before salvation is not based on what you do in this life, it is based on your response to sin. In order for it to be based on this life we would have to match up to God's standards. And God's standards are perfection. No sin at all. Now God is aware that obviously humans cant do that now, because of sin so he sent Jesus to create another way.
I agree with you, that is the best way to lead your life, but it is not how we are judged by God at the end. That is the way God wants us to lead our lives, but no matter how "good" a life you lead, sin cannot be removed by doing good works.
Firstly, yes he does. Time and time again it is mentioned that God cannot stand "False Gods" or "Other Gods but He", that only those who become Christians can attain a place in the next life (possibly Jews, but I'm a little hazy on that front) and throughout the entire of the history of the Christian Church the idea has been to Convert people, taking from the people of other Faiths.

Secondly, aren't you contradicting yourself? You said it wasn't the level of sin, it was the response to sin; then, when I gave an explanation of the most important response to sin, you said it wasn't that either, and that only relationship with God does it. So the only correct response to sin is to jump straight into the arms of God? Sounds a little fishy... Every time Claire makes a mistake, she must genuinely swear an oath to Steve that she will do whatever he tells her for the rest of her life in order to be forgiven...

Its not deserving and hell is not a punishment. Its the natural result of sin. The natural result of rebellion against God (sin) is to go to hell. Now God has created a way for people to avoid that, but they have to choose it. He cant force people to go into it. Chrisitanity as a faith granted is not just about salvation, but if you want to know how salvation works, I am describing it to you. Ultimately you will not be judged by your actions on this earth, but by your response to sin. Do you try to do something about it by accepting Jesus and trying to live the life he set out, or do you ignore it.
*Points above* If it was truly based on a response to sin, Jesus is just one way.

But on the issue of the necessity of choice, imagine you and your partner are escaping from a burning house. Suddenly, without warning, your partner decides that they want to stay in the house, even if it's going to burn down around them. What do you do? You certainly don't say "Oh well, it's their choice, their life; I can always get another partner", you don't think "I must respect her right to choose". No, your choice is simple: stay and snap them out of it or grab them and run. Even if snapping them out of it doesn't work, you still end up taking them with you; forcefully, if you must.

Because, quite frankly, respecting someone's right to choose is absurd in some situations. If you know quite well that someone will be hurt, killed or worse by their decisions, you change them yourself and deal with the consequences of that later. If God is the kind who would let us stay in the burning house, then so be it.


The analogy is flawed as was pointed out before. God does not save entire institutions but instead individuals. All individuals of any belief are offered the rope (Christ). It comes down to whether they take the rope. Seperate beliefs that do not amount to contradicting Christianity would not affect whether people took the rope or not. Seperate beliefs that conflict with Christianity would be like a seperate rope that one cannot hold onto while taking the rope that is Christ. Therefore alternative religions would be ropes that do not lead Claire to safety (God), not other people that also need saving.
Interestingly enough, that's sort of my point and my problem. God Does Not Save Institutions, which is why they too are strung up over the lava. Some of these institutions have done a great service for our world, been great teachers and encouraged both their followers and others to seek the truth for themselves. Some of them have brilliant ideas and ways of looking at things that, though not taught by the Church, could certainly be seen as glorifying God. And yet, for a couple of reasons, they have reached different conclusions that could be seen differently to those reached by the Christian Church (Divinity of Jesus, the Personal nature of God, the nature of salvation/the afterlife etc.), and therefore all that they have for us has been rejected by God's representatives.

The Church has been set up in such a way that the way to God through Jesus comes at the exclusion of many other ideas that would aid mankind. The only way to God is through Jesus, the only way to Jesus is through the Church, and the only way to the Church is to denounce the ideas of your previous religious institution. Well-intentioned and helpful ideas are made to die as part of the path to God. That is Claire's problem, and that is also mine. Brian, for all his kindness and sincerity, is not Steve and disagrees with some aspects of Steve's life and character, and that for Steve is enough to refuse to throw him the line.

So I don't think that's a flaw in my analogy; to the contrary, it has led you to reiterate my point. Institutions have ideas, but because some of these ideas conflict with the Christian institution, we are to expect that they and their followers are not to be saved regardless of their virtues, many of which would go unheeded by the church. That seems grossly unfair. The church could learn from these virtues, and if they learned enough from some of them, they would realise that there's nothing stopping Steve unconditionally throwing them the rope either.

However, perhaps the analogy might be more appropriate in some circumstances if I were to change Steve to the Christian institution and their ideas about God rather than God himself. Arguably, since the Churches' ideas about God are all we have anyway, this is a very minor switch, but with that in mind, think about this:

As the condition for her rescue, Claire must be with Steve and Only Steve. For Claire, if Steve was more like Brian in some aspects, that would be easier, because she likes things about Brian that she sees lacking in Steve. However, if Steve was sufficiently like Brian, he'd throw Brian the rope. Unless Steve throws Brian the rope, Claire sees in Steve a reason to stay with Brian rather than go with Steve.

Does that seem better?

Firstly, yes he does. Time and time again it is mentioned that God cannot stand "False Gods" or "Other Gods but He", that only those who become Christians can attain a place in the next life (possibly Jews, but I'm a little hazy on that front) and throughout the entire of the history of the Christian Church the idea has been to Convert people, taking from the people of other Faiths.

Yes, but that does not mean that God has gone all out using his power to destroy every other faith in the world. He has said that he hates "false Gods" but he does not destroy them. He merely tells people that he does not want them to worship them and then they choose how to behave


Secondly, aren't you contradicting yourself? You said it wasn't the level of sin, it was the response to sin; then, when I gave an explanation of the most important response to sin, you said it wasn't that either, and that only relationship with God does it. So the only correct response to sin is to jump straight into the arms of God? Sounds a little fishy... Every time Claire makes a mistake, she must genuinely swear an oath to Steve that she will do whatever he tells her for the rest of her life in order to be forgiven...

*Points above* If it was truly based on a response to sin, Jesus is just one way.

No he's not. Accepting Christ's salvation is the only way to actually get rid of sins. You can respond to sin by being as good as you can but that will not change the fact that you have sinned, and it will ultimately not save you. You only have to accept it once to be rid of all your past and futrue sins. However, if you have sincerely accepted salvation, you are not going to continue leading a sinful life. You are going to try your best not to, the point being to remember as I said that every sin is another splinter in Jesus's back.


But on the issue of the necessity of choice, imagine you and your partner are escaping from a burning house. Suddenly, without warning, your partner decides that they want to stay in the house, even if it's going to burn down around them. What do you do? You certainly don't say "Oh well, it's their choice, their life; I can always get another partner", you don't think "I must respect her right to choose". No, your choice is simple: stay and snap them out of it or grab them and run. Even if snapping them out of it doesn't work, you still end up taking them with you; forcefully, if you must.

Because, quite frankly, respecting someone's right to choose is absurd in some situations. If you know quite well that someone will be hurt, killed or worse by their decisions, you change them yourself and deal with the consequences of that later. If God is the kind who would let us stay in the burning house, then so be it.

Amazingly, you have more or less described God's problem with us. We are standing in the burning down house obstantely refusing to move and we will die. Now not only is God trying to rescue us (Jesus's death) but he has also given the order that all who are already rescued try to get people out as well (the great commision, spreading the word). However, because of the way he created us, having free will, he will not force us to leave. Why? Well God wanted people that would love him. Love cannot be forced, that is not what love is.


Interestingly enough, that's sort of my point and my problem. God Does Not Save Institutions, which is why they too are strung up over the lava. Some of these institutions have done a great service for our world, been great teachers and encouraged both their followers and others to seek the truth for themselves. Some of them have brilliant ideas and ways of looking at things that, though not taught by the Church, could certainly be seen as glorifying God. And yet, for a couple of reasons, they have reached different conclusions that could be seen differently to those reached by the Christian Church (Divinity of Jesus, the Personal nature of God, the nature of salvation/the afterlife etc.), and therefore all that they have for us has been rejected by God's representatives.

The Church has been set up in such a way that the way to God through Jesus comes at the exclusion of many other ideas that would aid mankind. The only way to God is through Jesus, the only way to Jesus is through the Church, and the only way to the Church is to denounce the ideas of your previous religious institution. Well-intentioned and helpful ideas are made to die as part of the path to God. That is Claire's problem, and that is also mine. Brian, for all his kindness and sincerity, is not Steve and disagrees with some aspects of Steve's life and character, and that for Steve is enough to refuse to throw him the line.

Again there is the same flaw. Steve (God) thows out the line of salvation to all, everyone, including those who are not Christians. But it is still up to them to accept it.


So I don't think that's a flaw in my analogy; to the contrary, it has led you to reiterate my point. Institutions have ideas, but because some of these ideas conflict with the Christian institution, we are to expect that they and their followers are not to be saved regardless of their virtues, many of which would go unheeded by the church. That seems grossly unfair. The church could learn from these virtues, and if they learned enough from some of them, they would realise that there's nothing stopping Steve unconditionally throwing them the rope either.

You dont understand what salvation is. Salvation is not based on what we do in this world. It is not based on people being good, kind and nice in general. Salvation is not decided by works. What salvation is decided by is you reaction to sin. Do you get rid of it (and there is only one way to get rid of it) and try then to do something about it in your life or do you ignore it and try to get rid of it by simpley being nice. Now of course it depends here on whether or not you are talking about the Chruch or God. The Chruch recognises that there are many in the world who do great things of great humanitarian good without being religious. And God recognises that as well. However, because of the nature of God, there is only one way for us to be "good" enough for heaven, by which I mean, be able to do enough good things in our lives. And that is this, we must be completely perfect. 100% good, no sin in our lives at all. And of course you may say to that "thats grossly unfair, no human can achieve that" and thats true. Its not unfair, its just the case, we cannot be "good" enough for God. However, God (being God) is naturally aware of this and so created another way for us to be saved. Basicly its a bargin, we are saved in exchange for Jesus's death. Jesus who was completely perfect in every way died the most horrific death devised by humankind. Now when Jesus is looked upon to see how good he is, God finds him 100% innocent, which is something we cannot acchieve by works. However we can acchieve it by grace. God is willing to put our name by Jesus's record. All we have to do is accept that he did it, and that he wants to put our name there. That he loves us enough to do that, to send his son to go through all that so we might know him. Now you might ask at this point that if it were just nessecary for Jesus to live the perfect life and die, why did he die in the most abhorent way possible. Well there are two reasons. One is that the perfect life, is to people, extremely abhorrent. As Christians we are told to be in the world but not of the world, and Jesus (being perfect) was like this in such an extreme that the world found him abhorent and thus plotted his death. Secondly, it is only fair for God to judge us if he himself is aware of how our existance feels. Jesus was homeless, everything he had was given to him or borrowed. He was born in a situation where the legitamacy of his birth was doubted, in a time when his people were under an occupation army, he was betrayed by his closest friends, and then later abandoned by them and died in the most horrific fassion without a friend in the world. Thus you can see, God is now fully aware of how humans exist, having experinced one of the worst lives possible.


However, perhaps the analogy might be more appropriate in some circumstances if I were to change Steve to the Christian institution and their ideas about God rather than God himself. Arguably, since the Churches' ideas about God are all we have anyway, this is a very minor switch, but with that in mind, think about this:

As the condition for her rescue, Claire must be with Steve and Only Steve. For Claire, if Steve was more like Brian in some aspects, that would be easier, because she likes things about Brian that she sees lacking in Steve. However, if Steve was sufficiently like Brian, he'd throw Brian the rope. Unless Steve throws Brian the rope, Claire sees in Steve a reason to stay with Brian rather than go with Steve.

Does that seem better?

I'm still unsure you understand salvation. You may not 'like' the fact that you see it as exclusive to the followers of Jesus but let me hit you with some knowledge. Firstly, Christianity is not the only religion to be exclusive about this. Islam is even more so since it demands that it's holy book (the Quran) can only be read in Arabic, and that any translation defiles it. Now its not even a basic understanding of arabic, but an extremely advanced one. So the Islamic God would not only have one path of salvation for you, but also have you understand it in only one tounge. Secondly, does not the fact that it is exclusive as you put it is a sign to its accuracy. The law of gravity is excluive, the laws of themodynamics are exclusive. Any truth is exclusive, and excludes the possibility of its opposite being correct. If you want more about the exclsivity of Christianity and why that it is not a flaw, read the 5th Chapter of Lee Strobel's "A case for faith" which is a work about theology and philosophy and not based on History or Science, so any claims it is unsceintific are wrong.

bump

two reasons why you havn't been able to. One, there's nothing to try. You simply ask Him. You are saved by ASKING Jesus ... wait wait wait, I need to interject "I believe" in front of this or someone will claim I'm forcing my version of truth down their throats. I believe if you sincerely ASK Jesus to come into your heart, you will feel it happen. He stands at the door and knocks, if you open the door, He WILL come in. That's the easy part. That is getting saved and getting past the hell business. Faith comes over time, but you'll never find it if you require full understanding first. If you must know every answer to every question then you don't have faith. Blessed are those who believe and have not seen. I tell you this because you say you've tried your best. It doesn't take your best...it takes your heart...it takes sincerity.
And when this method does not work, would you fault the premise or the person?

And when this method does not work, would you fault the premise or the person?
Hmmm interesting … for me personally I took it to be a faulty premise (at least in my exact situation)
But I have heard the person faulted …(the good ol … they were not TRULY trying with all their heart otherwise it would have happened)

Though I guess with an “unfaltable” premise you would have to blame the person

Buddhists can receive the same rewards as Christians in the life hereafter without surrendering the buddhist phiosphy totally. There are 5 basic tenants to becoming a Christian

1) Accepting that you have sinned
2) Accepting that you yourself, no matter how hard you work or how good you are cannot deal with the ulitmate consequences of those sins
3) Accept that there is a God who can and has saved you via Jesus's death on the cross
4) Ask that same God to save you, by forgiving your sins
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin

Buddhists only have one belief that I can see which contridicts this directly and that is Reincarnation.


This just reminded me of this

http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist.5802411

I believe He has a grudge against other idols of worship because The Scripture says He said so Himself. (I realize if you're a non-believer the scripture thing doesn't work for you but it does for me and that is why I believe it). I'll give your questions a shot.

1. I believe children, who have not come of an age where a real understanding can be reached to make the right decision are saved by virtue of their innocence. I don't know what that age is, I leave that part up to God, He might go on a case by case basis. I don't know.

2.2 Well I think killing their infants to save their place in heaven is pure insanity. That makes the parents murderers, it takes away the free will God had planned for the children, it attempts to play God, and destroys the plans God may have had for those children's lives. I hope that is sufficient cause that's really all I can say on that.

OK, thanks for this -- I appreciate your answers. But as regards the question about killing infants, it may be insanity, but it is also an inescapable logical conclusion of your (perfectly reasonable) belief that innocent children get to heaven. Human life is short, and the hereafter is, obviously, forever -- so for the child, death is the best thing that could possibly happen to it. It's losing an infinitesimally small amount of life on earth (filled with suffering, woe and the chance of sin) in return for a guaranteed eternity of heavenly bliss. It might thwart God's plans (if that's possible) but, unless innocent children don't get into heaven, it really has to be thought of as nothing but a positive event for the child.

My point is: the concept of a judgemental God results in obscenities like this. Even if you take the somewhat woolly view that Hell is merely either annihilation, or just an eternity cut off from God, you still have to face the fact that an eternity in Heaven is the ultimate best outcome for any soul and therefore killing infants before they are old enough to run the risk of missing out on this reward is, absolutely, the best thing you can do.

This is the problem with the notion of divine judgement. It also means that you end up worshipping a monster, not a God. I'm afraid the only type of God I'd be prepared to accept, were I to actually believe in one, would be one that would take all comers. "Mother Theresa? Come in, thou good and faithful servant. Adolf Hitler? Ah, well, never mind. You are forgiven, and made whole and sane. Come in and be at peace." That kind of thing. Any other sort of divinity just isn't worth it. After all, why would an infinite God bother punishing people, particularly after they're dead? It's not going to do them any good then, is it? They can hardly say, "Well, I've learned my lesson now, and hereby resolve to change my evil ways." And it certainly doesn't help anybody else still living. It seems a kind of a dumb idea, to me -- and I can't believe that, if this universe has a God, it has a dumb one.

The good news is that, given the size and age and complexity of the universe, any God which might exist will be far, far beyond any sad, stunted, human conceptions of what it may be -- even those ones that admit that it would be utterly incomprehensible.

Buddhists can receive the same rewards as Christians in the life hereafter without surrendering the buddhist phiosphy totally. There are 5 basic tenants to becoming a Christian

1) Accepting that you have sinned
2) Accepting that you yourself, no matter how hard you work or how good you are cannot deal with the ulitmate consequences of those sins
3) Accept that there is a God who can and has saved you via Jesus's death on the cross
4) Ask that same God to save you, by forgiving your sins
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin

Buddhists only have one belief that I can see which contridicts this directly and that is Reincarnation.
Actually, those "five tenants" have a few more inhernet in them, like so...

1) Accept that you have sinned
1a) Accept that there is a God to "turn away" from
1b) Accept that God is defined as the image portrayed in the Holy Bible
2) Accept that you yourself, no matter how hard you work or how good you are cannot deal with the ulitmate consequences of those sins
2a) Accept that there is an Afterlife
2b) Accept that there will be spiritual consequences for sinning in the Afterlife
3) Accept that there is a God who can and has saved you via Jesus's death on the cross
3a) Accept that Jesus was a man who died on the cross
3b) Accept that Jesus was, at the same time, some alternate existence of God who died for our sins
3c) Accept that Jesus became God, reunited with himself after death
4) Ask that same God to save you, by forgiving your sins
4a) Accept that we need "saving" from sin, i.e. that there is a "hell"
4b) Accept that God is capable of forgiving sins, a conscious act
4c) Accept that God is conscious
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin
5a) ...which is impossible, there is never no sinning

Wow, that's a lot to accept. And there's more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Actually, those "five tenants" have a few more inhernet in them, like so...

1) Accept that you have sinned
1a) Accept that there is a God to "turn away" from
1b) Accept that God is defined as the image portrayed in the Holy Bible
2) Accept that you yourself, no matter how hard you work or how good you are cannot deal with the ulitmate consequences of those sins
2a) Accept that there is an Afterlife
2b) Accept that there will be spiritual consequences for sinning in the Afterlife
3) Accept that there is a God who can and has saved you via Jesus's death on the cross
3a) Accept that Jesus was a man who died on the cross
3b) Accept that Jesus was, at the same time, some alternate existence of God who died for our sins
3c) Accept that Jesus became God, reunited with himself after death
4) Ask that same God to save you, by forgiving your sins
4a) Accept that we need "saving" from sin, i.e. that there is a "hell"
4b) Accept that God is capable of forgiving sins, a conscious act
4c) Accept that God is conscious
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin
5a) ...which is impossible, there is never no sinning

Wow, that's a lot to accept. And there's more that I can't think of off the top of my head.


Can I kiss you :fluffle:

Around 4b I would something to the effect of "accept our deffinition of what a sin is and that it will infact cause a seperation from god"

5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin
5a) ...which is impossible, there is never no sinning


You dont not sin at all, but you do your best to avoid it as you can.

And here is where the whole thing breaks down. Isn't sin essentially subjective?

Who is a god to decide what sin is? According to the ancient Greeks, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to mankind. That was a sin to them. If we follow the lessons of said Pantheon, if it weren't for sin, we'd have died of fear and cold.

Why should some mysterious stone tablet found by an insane desert band leader determine what sin is? And if god has all these rules, why did only give Moses 10?

I think it is also important to keep in mind that the Bible, which stars Jesus Christ and his "father", god, was a fairly boring book. That's why when Constatine called a council of cardinals (the first ever) in the 5th Century to determine which stories would go in the Bible, he left out alot, edited alot and added alot. For a story that makes it much more convincing to be Christian.

Here's a question for the believers...without using the word faith, what proof is there of god?

I haven't studied into it much but I think that some of the one god faiths are the same but the names and culture change it around a little ex: Christians worship jesus who is god, Muslims muhammad. I think its just a name change, but stuff like this causes conflict that cause millions of people to die. I still don't know why catholics worship mary who was just a vessel.

And here is where the whole thing breaks down. Isn't sin essentially subjective?

Who is a god to decide what sin is? According to the ancient Greeks, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to mankind. That was a sin to them. If we follow the lessons of said Pantheon, if it weren't for sin, we'd have died of fear and cold.

Why should some mysterious stone tablet found by an insane desert band leader determine what sin is? And if god has all these rules, why did only give Moses 10?

I think it is also important to keep in mind that the Bible, which stars Jesus Christ and his "father", god, was a fairly boring book. That's why when Constatine called a council of cardinals (the first ever) in the 5th Century to determine which stories would go in the Bible, he left out alot, edited alot and added alot. For a story that makes it much more convincing to be Christian.

Here's a question for the believers...without using the word faith, what proof is there of god?

you might like to have a look at this question....what is the proof that there is proof?

Did you personally prove that humans have this genetic material called DNA? If not, then most likely you believed it when somebody told you, or you read it in a book, because it 'made sense' to you. That 'proves' that you, like most of us, are capable of believing something, even in the absence of 'proof'.

Therefore, when someone is told that there is a God, his/her acceptance of that (because it 'makes sense' to them) in the absence of proof is not so illogical, or if it is illogical, then I think one would have to say that humans are generally not guided by logic.

Actually, those "five tenants" have a few more inhernet in them, like so...

1) Accept that you have sinned
1a) Accept that there is a God to "turn away" from
1b) Accept that God is defined as the image portrayed in the Holy Bible
2) Accept that you yourself, no matter how hard you work or how good you are cannot deal with the ulitmate consequences of those sins
2a) Accept that there is an Afterlife
2b) Accept that there will be spiritual consequences for sinning in the Afterlife
3) Accept that there is a God who can and has saved you via Jesus's death on the cross
3a) Accept that Jesus was a man who died on the cross
3b) Accept that Jesus was, at the same time, some alternate existence of God who died for our sins
3c) Accept that Jesus became God, reunited with himself after death
4) Ask that same God to save you, by forgiving your sins
4a) Accept that we need "saving" from sin, i.e. that there is a "hell"
4b) Accept that God is capable of forgiving sins, a conscious act
4c) Accept that God is conscious
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin
5a) ...which is impossible, there is never no sinning

Wow, that's a lot to accept. And there's more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Unless you are completely without a belief system, you will find yourself with a lot of 'accepting'.

And when this method does not work, would you fault the premise or the person?

Christ promised He'd be there waiting for us to open the door. If the seeker is truly sincere, the method always works. I can't swear you'll feel any different. I did, but I can't say that's true for everyone. But if you sincerely ask, you WILL be saved.

Christ promised He'd be there waiting for us to open the door. If the seeker is truly sincere, the method always works. I can't swear you'll feel any different. I did, but I can't say that's true for everyone. But if you sincerely ask, you WILL be saved.
I asked ... got no response ... hope he has got my back even if I cant have faith in him

Actually, those "five tenants" have a few more inhernet in them, like so...

1) Accept that you have sinned
1a) Accept that there is a God to "turn away" from
1b) Accept that God is defined as the image portrayed in the Holy Bible
2) Accept that you yourself, no matter how hard you work or how good you are cannot deal with the ulitmate consequences of those sins
2a) Accept that there is an Afterlife
2b) Accept that there will be spiritual consequences for sinning in the Afterlife
3) Accept that there is a God who can and has saved you via Jesus's death on the cross
3a) Accept that Jesus was a man who died on the cross
3b) Accept that Jesus was, at the same time, some alternate existence of God who died for our sins
3c) Accept that Jesus became God, reunited with himself after death
4) Ask that same God to save you, by forgiving your sins
4a) Accept that we need "saving" from sin, i.e. that there is a "hell"
4b) Accept that God is capable of forgiving sins, a conscious act
4c) Accept that God is conscious
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin
5a) ...which is impossible, there is never no sinning

Wow, that's a lot to accept. And there's more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

sure its a lot to accept, but there's a lot at stake.

as far as your last point 5a) the point he made was to endeavor no longer to sin. The forgiveness you receive through Jesus is for ALL of your sins. Past, present, and future. You are correct that its impossible to never sin, the point is to promise to God that you will TRY. You will attempt to live your life without sin. If you fall, He'll be there to pick you up. You don't fall out of grace because you slip up.

Interestingly enough, that's sort of my point and my problem. God Does Not Save Institutions, which is why they too are strung up over the lava. Some of these institutions have done a great service for our world, been great teachers and encouraged both their followers and others to seek the truth for themselves. Some of them have brilliant ideas and ways of looking at things that, though not taught by the Church, could certainly be seen as glorifying God. And yet, for a couple of reasons, they have reached different conclusions that could be seen differently to those reached by the Christian Church (Divinity of Jesus, the Personal nature of God, the nature of salvation/the afterlife etc.), and therefore all that they have for us has been rejected by God's representatives.

Institutions don't need to be saved. When a rescue worker enters a house that is flooded, does s/he save the people or the house? You are painting the Church as God's representatives. They are NOT! I don't hold that they have any connection to God that you don't or can't have. Again, I have read books that are the founding of almost ever religion and philosophy you've mentioned here. I find it's very easy to incorporate many tenets of Buddhism in my philosophies without seperating myself from God.

The Church has been set up in such a way that the way to God through Jesus comes at the exclusion of many other ideas that would aid mankind. The only way to God is through Jesus, the only way to Jesus is through the Church, and the only way to the Church is to denounce the ideas of your previous religious institution. Well-intentioned and helpful ideas are made to die as part of the path to God. That is Claire's problem, and that is also mine. Brian, for all his kindness and sincerity, is not Steve and disagrees with some aspects of Steve's life and character, and that for Steve is enough to refuse to throw him the line.

If you're railing against what people view as the Church, then you'll get no objection from me. The way to God through Jesus is a personal road and no one can lead you on the path save Jesus. The Church has no role there in my opinion and, in fact, I find them to frequently bastardized the words of Jesus in order to gain power on Earth. Jesus railed against this as well. If you consider Steve to be the Church then that is the flaw in the analogy. The Church cannot save you. Only Jesus can.

So I don't think that's a flaw in my analogy; to the contrary, it has led you to reiterate my point. Institutions have ideas, but because some of these ideas conflict with the Christian institution, we are to expect that they and their followers are not to be saved regardless of their virtues, many of which would go unheeded by the church. That seems grossly unfair. The church could learn from these virtues, and if they learned enough from some of them, they would realise that there's nothing stopping Steve unconditionally throwing them the rope either.

I don't agree with the Church. I don't think the Church has anything to do with the rope. I hold that so long as you accept that you are a sinner and need to be saved and accept that salvation as Jesus Christ, being wrong about other things (in my opinion) isn't an issue. Christians are not one homogenous group. We disagree on many things. You are setting up the Church for worship which is not the intent.

However, perhaps the analogy might be more appropriate in some circumstances if I were to change Steve to the Christian institution and their ideas about God rather than God himself. Arguably, since the Churches' ideas about God are all we have anyway, this is a very minor switch, but with that in mind, think about this:

Again, if you're railing against the Christian Church then we agree. However if the rope is Jesus (which is the only thing that can save you) and the land is God, then we disagree. Jesus wouldn't agree with many of the ideas of the 'Church'. The Church didn't throw you the rope. They didn't send down the savior and then have him die for our sins. God threw you and me and Claire the rope. The Church has nothing to do with it.

As the condition for her rescue, Claire must be with Steve and Only Steve. For Claire, if Steve was more like Brian in some aspects, that would be easier, because she likes things about Brian that she sees lacking in Steve. However, if Steve was sufficiently like Brian, he'd throw Brian the rope. Unless Steve throws Brian the rope, Claire sees in Steve a reason to stay with Brian rather than go with Steve.

Is Steve God or the Christian Institution? There is no requirement for you to agree with Christian Institution to be saved. I don't. Again, if Brian is an institution, institutions cannot be rescued, only the people within them can.

Does that seem better?
No, I think you actually made it worse, unless your point isn't that you have a problem with Christ and God, but instead the Christian Church.

I haven't studied into it much but I think that some of the one god faiths are the same but the names and culture change it around a little ex: Christians worship jesus who is god, Muslims muhammad. I think its just a name change, but stuff like this causes conflict that cause millions of people to die. I still don't know why catholics worship mary who was just a vessel.

The worshipping Mary thing has already been discussed. Catholics don't worship her or the saints. They pray TO them as a mediary between themselves and Jesus. I don't believe this is necessary but they believe it helps. They don't, however, worship them.

Jesus is NOT Muhammad. Both of these men appear in the bible, they were separate beings.

Originally Posted by Willamena
5) Having responded to the fact that you knew sin was a problem, you then endevour no longer to sin
5a) ...which is impossible, there is never no sinning
You dont not sin at all, but you do your best to avoid it as you can.
This is what's called a lose-lose proposition.

I asked ... got no response ... hope he has got my back even if I cant have faith in him

me too. I'll pray about it for you.

This is what's called a lose-lose proposition.

how do you figure that? You do your best and are protected while you do. If you slip up, you're still covered. How can you possibly see that as a lose-lose? what do you lose? What does God lose?

sure its a lot to accept, but there's a lot at stake.

as far as your last point 5a) the point he made was to endeavor no longer to sin. The forgiveness you receive through Jesus is for ALL of your sins. Past, present, and future. You are correct that its impossible to never sin, the point is to promise to God that you will TRY. You will attempt to live your life without sin. If you fall, He'll be there to pick you up. You don't fall out of grace because you slip up.

The question remains, though: why? Why should God punish, or at the very least fail to reward, those people who don't try? What is the point of damning people who never feel the slightest need to open their hearts to an entity they don't see any good reason to believe exists? Or punishing people who may have done horrible things when they were alive, but who are now safely dead, not likely to do any further harm, and incapable of changing their actions anyway?

People have tried to compare God to a loving but strict parent, handing out punishments and rewards: but a parent punishes or rewards in order to discourage or encourage certain kinds of behaviour. It's a bit late for God to start doing it after death, surely? Especially since He refuses to provide any evidence that the rewards and punishments actually exist, or to provide an unambiguous and consistent set of instructions.

Unless you are completely without a belief system, you will find yourself with a lot of 'accepting'.
Absolutely!

And each of them require a lot of more than 5 things to accept.

Christ promised He'd be there waiting for us to open the door. If the seeker is truly sincere, the method always works. I can't swear you'll feel any different. I did, but I can't say that's true for everyone. But if you sincerely ask, you WILL be saved.
Have you considered that it worked for you because you are, and always were, already a believer?

as far as your last point 5a) the point he made was to endeavor no longer to sin. The forgiveness you receive through Jesus is for ALL of your sins. Past, present, and future. You are correct that its impossible to never sin, the point is to promise to God that you will TRY. You will attempt to live your life without sin. If you fall, He'll be there to pick you up. You don't fall out of grace because you slip up.
What is "grace" in this context?

me too. I'll pray about it for you.
Im happy for any help I can get lol I wont expect much but thanks for the sentiment :)

The question remains, though: why? Why should God punish, or at the very least fail to reward, those people who don't try? What is the point of damning people who never feel the slightest need to open their hearts to an entity they don't see any good reason to believe exists? Or punishing people who may have done horrible things when they were alive, but who are now safely dead, not likely to do any further harm, and incapable of changing their actions anyway?

People have tried to compare God to a loving but strict parent, handing out punishments and rewards: but a parent punishes or rewards in order to discourage or encourage certain kinds of behaviour. It's a bit late for God to start doing it after death, surely? Especially since He refuses to provide any evidence that the rewards and punishments actually exist, or to provide an unambiguous and consistent set of instructions.

who's to say, they're safely dead? Who's to say its too late for God to start doing it after death? How do we know it all won't play a part in the next life? You're assuming that this life is it, and then its all about either sitting on the clouds listening to angels play the harp, or watching the skin blister off your bones in hell. I believe the afterlife will hold quite a lot more choices than those two. Otherwise eternity will suck either way. One is agonizing and one is boring as all get out. I don't really KNOW the answer to your question, but whatever that answer is, I'd rather accept it when I get it than risk an eternity away from God.

The worshipping Mary thing has already been discussed. Catholics don't worship her or the saints. They pray TO them as a mediary between themselves and Jesus. I don't believe this is necessary but they believe it helps. They don't, however, worship them.

Jesus is NOT Muhammad. Both of these men appear in the bible, they were separate beings.

!

Muhammad does not appear in the Bible. Jesus, however, is mentioned several times in the Koran, e.g.:

Then Allah will say: 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: "Worship me and my mother as gods beside Allah?"' 'Glory to you,' he will answer, ‘how could I say that to which I have no right?'

And to Monono: Muslims don't worship Muhammad, they worship Allah.

Have you considered that it worked for you because you are, and always were, already a believer?

I suppose that could be true, although I'm fairly certain during my teenage years and well into my late 20s I was anything but a believer.

who's to say, they're safely dead? Who's to say its too late for God to start doing it after death? How do we know it all won't play a part in the next life? You're assuming that this life is it, and then its all about either sitting on the clouds listening to angels play the harp, or watching the skin blister off your bones in hell. I believe the afterlife will hold quite a lot more choices than those two. Otherwise eternity will suck either way. One is agonizing and one is boring as all get out. I don't really KNOW the answer to your question, but whatever that answer is, I'd rather accept it when I get it than risk an eternity away from God.

I'm not assuming anything of the kind. Surely you don't imagine "The afterlife" as being anything like normal human existence, do you? An eternity of bliss is not, by its very definition, "boring". If it was boring, if even the capacity for boredom existed, it wouldn't be bliss, would it? Do you think that bad people, if admitted into such an eternal, blissful existence, would somehow be able to foul it up for everyone else? So I repeat, what is the point of post-mortem punishment?

And, on the question of "risking an eternity away from God": is that not running dangerously close to saying that it would be better for small children to die before they get old enough to start sinning and begin to run that risk for themselves? I don't see any way I'll start to believe that Jesus was anything more than a troublesome rabbi in a backwater Roman province some 2,000 years ago. I might get hit by a bus this evening and be condemned to an eternity away from God because of my skepticism. Do you therefore think it might have been better for me if I'd died in infancy?

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read



My question:


do you feel the ever-so-Christian urge to convert strangers that you must post your silly little fairy-tales on an online forum directed to those with their own beliefs (or lack thereof)?

Is your head so far up your crucifix-toting ass that you honestly believe that anybody who doesn't follow your religion isn't in fact an independant mind, but is instead "Skeptical" and just needs to be given the right push?

Do you honestly believe that an atheist, or anybody with an alternate religion, for that matter, really needs to argue with you or anyone else about logical falacies in order to state their case?


love,
Veryl Ice

I suppose that could be true, although I'm fairly certain during my teenage years and well into my late 20s I was anything but a believer.
But maybe you had a tendency towards belief even if you had a conscious separation … you went back to what felt right to you

I'm not assuming anything of the kind. Surely you don't imagine "The afterlife" as being anything like normal human existence, do you? An eternity of bliss is not, by its very definition, "boring". If it was boring, if even the capacity for boredom existed, it wouldn't be bliss, would it? Do you think that bad people, if admitted into such an eternal, blissful existence, would somehow be able to foul it up for everyone else? So I repeat, what is the point of post-mortem punishment?

And, on the question of "risking an eternity away from God": is that not running dangerously close to saying that it would be better for small children to die before they get old enough to start sinning and begin to run that risk for themselves? I don't see any way I'll start to believe that Jesus was anything more than a troublesome rabbi in a backwater Roman province some 2,000 years ago. I might get hit by a bus this evening and be condemned to an eternity away from God because of my skepticism. Do you therefore think it might have been better for me if I'd died in infancy?

No I don't think it would be better. It might have been more to your advantage but not better. If we're assuming God made you, He did so WITH free will. If you'd been killed in infancy, the free will would be nullified. You would not HAVE the free will God wanted you to have.

You have the choice to eat. If you don't eat, you will die. Say you choose not to eat because you don't believe you will die from it. What if, to save you from making this mistake, your mother when you were a child strapped you to a bed and had you live your entire life in that bed, strapped in, with an IV in your arm. She stole your chance to make your choice.

My question:


do you feel the ever-so-Christian urge to convert strangers that you must post your silly little fairy-tales on an online forum directed to those with their own beliefs (or lack thereof)?

Is your head so far up your crucifix-toting ass that you honestly believe that anybody who doesn't follow your religion isn't in fact an independant mind, but is instead "Skeptical" and just needs to be given the right push?

Do you honestly believe that an atheist, or anybody with an alternate religion, for that matter, really needs to argue with you or anyone else about logical falacies in order to state their case?


love,
Veryl Ice

probably not everyone, but as you can see the 102 pages in front of this one, quite a lot of us are enjoying stating our cases. Keep your insults to yourself and join in or don't. The choice is yours.

how do you figure that? You do your best and are protected while you do. If you slip up, you're still covered. How can you possibly see that as a lose-lose? what do you lose? What does God lose?
By lose-lose, I was talking about just you. You are "endeavouring" (trying really, really hard) to never sin, which is turning away from the path of God. But sin is inevitable, unavoidable and, in fact, utterly necessary, because we have free will. This is how it is lose-lose.

But maybe you had a tendency towards belief even if you had a conscious separation … you went back to what felt right to you

I don't deny that is possible. But it doesn't change my belief or my faith. Neither does it explain (TO ME) my subsequent experiences with God. Jesus made it plain that all are welcome, you have but to ask and you shall receive. These are His words. I believe them.

No I don't think it would be better. It might have been more to your advantage but not better. If we're assuming God made you, He did so WITH free will. If you'd been killed in infancy, the free will would be nullified. You would not HAVE the free will God wanted you to have.

You have the choice to eat. If you don't eat, you will die. Say you choose not to eat because you don't believe you will die from it. What if, to save you from making this mistake, your mother when you were a child strapped you to a bed and had you live your entire life in that bed, strapped in, with an IV in your arm. She stole your chance to make your choice.

If God wants us all to have free will, then why do millions of babies die every year from disease? Why do ANY babies die? He could have made human beings immune to all harm until they reached the age when they could know right from wrong, and prevented this brutal, ongoing, wholesale nullification of free will. But, if you're right, then they are the lucky ones. They have an automatic ticket to paradise. It's just the ones who survive who run the risk of eternal damnation. I find this to be a profoundly anti-life philosophy. Any God who would devise such a system would have to be crazy.

I also don't see how you could think that it would be "more to my advantage" to have died in infancy and got to go to Heaven, but not "better". What's the difference between "more to my advantage" and "better"?

I suppose that could be true, although I'm fairly certain during my teenage years and well into my late 20s I was anything but a believer.
I became a "believer" in god (though not the Christian version) in my mid-30's. When it happened, I realised that I had always been a believer, just not realised it (made it "real").

By lose-lose, I was talking about just you. You are "endeavouring" (trying really, really hard) to never sin, which is turning away from the path of God. But sin is inevitable, unavoidable and, in fact, utterly necessary, because we have free will. This is how it is lose-lose.

that's just silly logic.

Professional football players endeavor (try really really hard) to be in the best shape possible and be better and stronger than their peers in order to make the huge bucks. They want to be the absolute best, but its practically unavoidable that they will not acheive that asporation. They may not acheive absolute best, but they may acheive the big bucks. Does this make it a lose-lose?

EDITED: I meant to say not acheive

I strive not to sin, I fail but I keep striving. Whether I fail or not, my goal is assured. There's no loss to it. The only thing I've lost is a few opportunities to engage in something I shouldn't be engaging in anyway, but that loss is tempered with the self dignity and integrity of someone who has self-control so even that isn't a loss.

But on the issue of the necessity of choice, imagine you and your partner are escaping from a burning house. Suddenly, without warning, your partner decides that they want to stay in the house, even if it's going to burn down around them. What do you do? You certainly don't say "Oh well, it's their choice, their life; I can always get another partner", you don't think "I must respect her right to choose". No, your choice is simple: stay and snap them out of it or grab them and run. Even if snapping them out of it doesn't work, you still end up taking them with you; forcefully, if you must.

Thus justifying forcing one's views on another under the guise of trying to "save thier soul"

If God wants us all to have free will, then why do millions of babies die every year from disease? Why do ANY babies die? He could have made human beings immune to all harm until they reached the age when they could know right from wrong, and prevented this brutal, ongoing, wholesale nullification of free will. But, if you're right, then they are the lucky ones. They have an automatic ticket to paradise. It's just the ones who survive who run the risk of eternal damnation. I find this to be a profoundly anti-life philosophy. Any God who would devise such a system would have to be crazy.

I also don't see how you could think that it would be "more to my advantage" to have died in infancy and got to go to Heaven, but not "better". What's the difference between "more to my advantage" and "better"?

more to your advantage meaning easier. Easier is not always better.

You can make it all as complicated as you like but the system this crazy God devised isn't that tough. All this talk about what is happening to every person you can think of in every scenario you can think of has nothing to do with you, the bottom line is what will happen to YOU. We can sit here and dream up scenarios that might happen to faceless children. You can keep asking me about my idea of what will happen, and all I can tell you is I don't have all the answers. Only God has all of them. He makes the decisions and He doesn't consult me when He does. You can dream up all these scenarios and at the end of the discussion stick with "I'd rather burn in hell than go along with that". That is your choice, you make it. But don't blame the children from some other countries that you've never met, never would have met, and really never thought much about anyway when your choice is honored.

I agree with you, that is the best way to lead your life, but it is not how we are judged by God at the end. That is the way God wants us to lead our lives, but no matter how "good" a life you lead, sin cannot be removed by doing good works.

Matthew 25:31-46
James 2:14-26

I don't deny that is possible. But it doesn't change my belief or my faith. Neither does it explain (TO ME) my subsequent experiences with God. Jesus made it plain that all are welcome, you have but to ask and you shall receive. These are His words. I believe them.
That’s all good and fine for those that at least to them got an answer … I was left out in the cold asking and being told by others “you are not asking with your whole heart” and that I am destined for hell because of my inability to truly believe

(Though I should be used to that … the number of clergy that told me I was going to hell is staggering )

I became a "believer" in god (though not the Christian version) in my mid-30's. When it happened, I realised that I had always been a believer, just not realised it (made it "real").
Yeah that’s why I never deny the possibility that things will change in the future but what I know of myself says I am not a believer

Maybe time will change me

more to your advantage meaning easier. Easier is not always better.

How can anything be better than getting into heaven?

You can make it all as complicated as you like but the system this crazy God devised isn't that tough. All this talk about what is happening to every person you can think of in every scenario you can think of has nothing to do with you, the bottom line is what will happen to YOU. We can sit here and dream up scenarios that might happen to faceless children. You can keep asking me about my idea of what will happen, and all I can tell you is I don't have all the answers. Only God has all of them. He makes the decisions and He doesn't consult me when He does. You can dream up all these scenarios and at the end of the discussion stick with "I'd rather burn in hell than go along with that". That is your choice, you make it. But don't blame the children from some other countries that you've never met, never would have met, and really never thought much about anyway when your choice is honored.

It may not be tough, but it IS crazy. Punishing people after they're dead: that's crazy. Making infant mortality automatically better than growth and development: that's crazy. I'm not the one making it complicated: I'm merely pursuing the logical conclusions of your initial premise. The fact that the logic of this system breaks down so easily leads me to conclude that the whole notion of a judgemental God is crazy. What I can't understand is why you are so taken with it. Surely an all-loving, all-merciful, all-forgiving God is superior to one who dishes out post-mortem punishments and rewards? What's wrong with the idea of a God who loves and forgives all creatures, whether or not they ask for forgiveness? Jesus, after all, asked God (i.e. Himself) to forgive the soldiers who were nailing him to the cross. The soldiers didn't ask for it, didn't look for it, didn't want it: Jesus gave it to them anyway.

Oh, and by the way: this is going off-topic but I don't blame the "faceless" children for anything. I personally feel very, very angry about the hideous catalogue of child death that ticks by, day after day after day, in this world supposedly made by a benevolent and loving God. I feel angry that in our countries we're literally gorging ourselves sick while hundreds of thousands are dying of hunger. I reject any philosophy which concludes that infant death, or indeed any death, is either "better" or "more advantageous" than life. I hope I always will.

that's just silly logic.

Professional football players endeavor (try really really hard) to be in the best shape possible and be better and stronger than their peers in order to make the huge bucks. They want to be the absolute best, but its practically unavoidable that they will acheive that asporation. They may not acheive absolute best, but they may acheive the big bucks. Does this make it a lose-lose?

I strive not to sin, I fail but I keep striving. Whether I fail or not, my goal is assured. There's no loss to it. The only thing I've lost is a few opportunities to engage in something I shouldn't be engaging in anyway, but that loss is tempered with the self dignity and integrity of someone who has self-control so even that isn't a loss.
"Absolute best" is not comparable to what is unavoidable in what I said. Sin is --unless you're suggesting that sin is "absolute best." To use your analogy, sin is comparable the football player having to rest and relax every once in a while, and not think about the game at all. This *is* unavoidable. It's not really a good analogy at all. What makes this football situation a lose-lose one is that the player's body deteriorates with age. He must eventually retire to a life of total rest and relaxation. That doesn't describe Christianity at all.

What is "grace" in this context?

God's willingness to fogive our sins. He doenst have to, but out of his kindness he created a way for us to be with him. Grace in this context means God's kindness.

that's just silly logic.

Professional football players endeavor (try really really hard) to be in the best shape possible and be better and stronger than their peers in order to make the huge bucks. They want to be the absolute best, but its practically unavoidable that they will not acheive that asporation. They may not acheive absolute best, but they may acheive the big bucks. Does this make it a lose-lose?

EDITED: I meant to say not acheive
That's what you get for making silly analogies, rather than addressing the actual subject. ;)

"Absolute best" is not comparable to what is unavoidable in what I said. Sin is --unless you're suggesting that sin is "absolute best." To use your analogy, sin is comparable the football player having to rest and relax every once in a while, and not think about the game at all. This *is* unavoidable. It's not really a good analogy at all. What makes this football situation a lose-lose one is that the player's body deteriorates with age. He must eventually retire to a life of total rest and relaxation. That doesn't describe Christianity at all.

well give me a break, I came up with it on the fly. My point is, I'm covered even if I slip up. I'll keep trying not to sin because I love God and am grateful for the grace He's given me. I don't refrain from sinning because it helps keep me from damnation, I refrain from sinning because I love Him. I havn't lost a thing except damnation. That's gone.

That's what you get for making silly analogies, rather than addressing the actual subject. ;)

Originally Posted by Willamena
By lose-lose, I was talking about just you. You are "endeavouring" (trying really, really hard) to never sin, which is turning away from the path of God. But sin is inevitable, unavoidable and, in fact, utterly necessary, because we have free will. This is how it is lose-lose.

This is what I meant by silly logic. There is still no loss here.

Originally Posted by Willamena
By lose-lose, I was talking about just you. You are "endeavouring" (trying really, really hard) to never sin, which is turning away from the path of God. But sin is inevitable, unavoidable and, in fact, utterly necessary, because we have free will. This is how it is lose-lose.

This is what I meant by silly logic. There is still no loss here.
If there is no loss in sin, then there is no reason to avoid it.

This is life.

Matthew 25:31-46

The parable of the sheep and the goats. I know this one well. Jesus is not describing here what you have to do to be saved, he is describing the chaterstics of those who are. In other words, if you are saved then this is what you should be doing. Its not what you need to do to become saved however


James 2:14-26

What that says is faith without deeds is not real faith. In other words, as a result of our faith we should be doing good things, works should be a symtom or consequence of the faith we have. If its not then our faith is not real. What that doesnt mean is that works are what we are judged upon.

do you feel the ever-so-Christian urge to convert strangers that you must post your silly little fairy-tales on an online forum directed to those with their own beliefs (or lack thereof)?

Is your head so far up your crucifix-toting ass that you honestly believe that anybody who doesn't follow your religion isn't in fact an independant mind, but is instead "Skeptical" and just needs to be given the right push?

Do you honestly believe that an atheist, or anybody with an alternate religion, for that matter, really needs to argue with you or anyone else about logical falacies in order to state their case?

love,
Veryl Ice

I have an extremely strong suspicion thats flaming, but I'll find out for sure.

If there is no loss in sin, then there is no reason to avoid it.

This is life.

I'm really not following you now :confused:

The question remains, though: why? Why should God punish, or at the very least fail to reward, those people who don't try? What is the point of damning people who never feel the slightest need to open their hearts to an entity they don't see any good reason to believe exists? Or punishing people who may have done horrible things when they were alive, but who are now safely dead, not likely to do any further harm, and incapable of changing their actions anyway?

I dont know how often I am going to explain this, but for the [large number] time, God does not punish anyone. Going to hell is a natural state for those who rebel against God. It was originally created for the devil and his co-conspirtors, but they were not the only ones who choose to rebel against God. Its not God sending you there, its you falling there. Its like droping a ball. It will fall downwards for no other reason but gravity is pulling it down, and gravity is a natural force. God desprately doesnt want you to go to hell and to that end he sent Jesus to die to create a system where you dont have to. But because of the way he created us (with free will) he cannot force us to be saved. We have to accept it ourselves. He wants to save us. Remember that, wants, not needs. He wants to save us because he loves us. This is a God who created a people who when presented with himself in perfect human form then turned around and killed him.


People have tried to compare God to a loving but strict parent, handing out punishments and rewards: but a parent punishes or rewards in order to discourage or encourage certain kinds of behaviour. It's a bit late for God to start doing it after death, surely? Especially since He refuses to provide any evidence that the rewards and punishments actually exist, or to provide an unambiguous and consistent set of instructions.

He has provided the Bible and has entered this world himself. If you want more than that, study and pray. Thats all I can suggest to you. But I will say that if you enter into that study and prayer with a mind that is unwilling to accept God's existance then your not going to get very far.

By lose-lose, I was talking about just you. You are "endeavouring" (trying really, really hard) to never sin, which is turning away from the path of God. But sin is inevitable, unavoidable and, in fact, utterly necessary, because we have free will. This is how it is lose-lose.


You can choose to avoid sin because of that free will. Now ultimately you will not always succeced, but if you are already saved then that does not matter, since all your sins are forgiven. However, if you ignore sin after you are saved, and just act like you did beforehand, you have not responded to the seriousness of sin properly. Sin is not nessecary because of free will, that logic is stupid. You can choose not to so sin via your free will, in the same way you can choose to sin. It is often harder to choose not to sin

You can choose to avoid sin because of that free will. Now ultimately you will not always succeced, but if you are already saved then that does not matter, since all your sins are forgiven. However, if you ignore sin after you are saved, and just act like you did beforehand, you have not responded to the seriousness of sin properly. Sin is not nessecary because of free will, that logic is stupid. You can choose not to so sin via your free will, in the same way you can choose to sin. It is often harder to choose not to sin
If we are absolutly free to decide on sin how is it that we MUST fall short

It may be very probable that we fall short but I dont see how that translates into a must

So theoredicaly a human could be compleatly inosent of his own free will (like jesus without being son of god)

The parable of the sheep and the goats. I know this one well. Jesus is not describing here what you have to do to be saved, he is describing the chaterstics of those who are. In other words, if you are saved then this is what you should be doing. Its not what you need to do to become saved however



What that says is faith without deeds is not real faith. In other words, as a result of our faith we should be doing good things, works should be a symtom or consequence of the faith we have. If its not then our faith is not real. What that doesnt mean is that works are what we are judged upon.


"Faith without works is dead" OK, so you have faith. Do your actions prove it? If all you do with your faith is condemn others, your faith is worthless. So you believe. Good for you. "for the demons believe also, and tremble". Get out there and do some good. Of course you must have faith, but it's not enough to just say it. Anyone can mouth the words, now prove it. Tell me where Jesus ever said "go out, tell everyone what a good Christian you are, but you don't really have to give a damn". If all you're doing is sitting there on your high horse, consigning others to eternal damnation because they disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, of believe in another Scripture, you've wasted your faith. (For the record, I haven't done as much with my faith as I should have. As soon as I get that degree, and get my life in order, I'll find a way to correct that. But I do believe that one should be concerned about their fellow man, not just atand there screaming about hellfire).

P.S. No, I'm not saying you necessarily do that yourself. I don't know you, and shan't make that judgement.

If we are absolutly free to decide on sin how is it that we MUST fall short

It may be very probable that we fall short but I dont see how that translates into a must

So theoredicaly a human could be compleatly inosent of his own free will (like jesus without being son of god)

You cant just "choose" not to sin and it happen. It takes far more than that, and as a result of the fall its even harder. The trait the fall left in all humans was a tendency towards sin. Not a sin itself (like the idea of original sin), but a tendency to do so. So yes it is possible for someone not to sin, but practically impossible. And unless you have an extreme self opinion of yourself I dont think you can say you havent sinned.

"Faith without works is dead" OK, so you have faith. Do your actions prove it? If all you do with your faith is condemn others, your faith is worthless. So you believe. Good for you. "for the demons believe also, and tremble". Get out there and do some good. Of course you must have faith, but it's not enough to just say it. Anyone can mouth the words, now prove it. Tell me where Jesus ever said "go out, tell everyone what a good Christian you are, but you don't really have to give a damn". If all you're doing is sitting there on your high horse, consigning others to eternal damnation because they disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, of believe in another Scripture, you've wasted your faith. (For the record, I haven't done as much with my faith as I should have. As soon as I get that degree, and get my life in order, I'll find a way to correct that. But I do believe that one should be concerned about their fellow man, not just atand there screaming about hellfire).


Out of curiosity, what is the point your trying to make here? Do you agree with me or not?

You cant just "choose" not to sin and it happen. It takes far more than that, and as a result of the fall its even harder. The trait the fall left in all humans was a tendency towards sin. Not a sin itself (like the idea of original sin), but a tendency to do so. So yes it is possible for someone not to sin, but practically impossible. And unless you have an extreme self opinion of yourself I dont think you can say you havent sinned.
I never said I haven’t sinned but I have never heard any Christian admit that it is possible for a normal human to be sinless

I never said I haven’t sinned but I have never heard any Christian admit that it is possible for a normal human to be sinless

It is well nigh impossible for humans not to sin because of the trait of the fall which leaves humans with the tend towards sin. But it is possible for a human never to sin, but that posiblity is very very small.

It is well nigh impossible for humans not to sin because of the trait of the fall which leaves humans with the tend towards sin. But it is possible for a human never to sin, but that posiblity is very very small.
So god set up a condition so that in the end we either worship him or suffer eternally

So god set up a condition so that in the end we either worship him or suffer eternally

The fall was not Gods fault. And again, we dont have to worship him. Worship is a response to how great God is but you dont have to do it to be saved. No where in the Bible does God say to people "Worship me now" or anything like that. Salvation (for the Nth time) is based upon our reaction to sin, and I have explained how we can be saved several times.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

And here are some links for you:

Earl Doherty (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/earl_doherty/index.shtml)

Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case of Christ", by Earl Doherty (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968925901)

A Better Man than Jesus: Musonius Rufus (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html)

Yes, but that does not mean that God has gone all out using his power to destroy every other faith in the world. He has said that he hates "false Gods" but he does not destroy them. He merely tells people that he does not want them to worship them and then they choose how to behave

Well, I don't call forced conversion allowing people to choose. For all you know, our ancestors that lived in the roots of the Byzantine Empire were forcefully converted to Christianity in the first place. (I'm not saying that's how it goes. I don't know your family's religious history.) "Convert or die." -- if the above scenario was true, they weren't strong enough to utilize their free will and say "I will die before I smash my temple of Minerva and Jove".

But that's digression. What I'm saying is that, in sending the militia-type missionaries with swords around the Empire, they destroyed an ancient Pagan religion. (Funny, though, how Christmas is celebrated on Dec 25th because it was an Ancient Roman Sun festival -- funny how they still couldn't tolerate a polytheist religion) Completely washed it out. Those who caved in because a sword was against their necks had to give up their old traditions and worship this one God instead of their specific deities. Those who did not want to convert were dead. So either way, that was the destruction of 'false gods'. God went through long millenia of dissatisfication if he didn't like the 'false gods' everyone was worshipping. I always thought it would have been so much easier if he'd extended beyond Adam and Eve.


No he's not. Accepting Christ's salvation is the only way to actually get rid of sins.

I thought you said it is impossible to get rid of our sins?

The thing about Kamsaki's analogy is that it's pretty much sinful in that it is blackmail. I believe in that.


Again there is the same flaw. Steve (God) thows out the line of salvation to all, everyone, including those who are not Christians. But it is still up to them to accept it.


This is kind of irrelevant to your argument, but you're saying yourself that God is trying to gain more followers by probing into the other religions. But the thing is is that it's quite futile, really. If those above the lava don't have enough faith in their own religions to know that if they do fall in they'll be okay, how can you expect them to take the rope and be able to have the preferred amount of faith in God? So really, whether they take the rope or not, they're still going to hell, aren't they.


You dont understand what salvation is. Salvation is not based on what we do in this world. It is not based on people being good, kind and nice in general. Salvation is not decided by works. What salvation is decided by is you reaction to sin. Do you get rid of it (and there is only one way to get rid of it) and try then to do something about it in your life or do you ignore it and try to get rid of it by simpley being nice.

See, now you're contradicting yourself, and that is why your integrity is shot. Your'e saying you don't achieve salvation based on what you do in the world, but doesn't that count believing in Jesus Christ? Your reaction to sin is based on what you do in this world, isn't it. Unless you transfer to another world when you pray and ask forgiveness, then I'm afraid you'll remain on a completely different chapter.

Jesus who was completely perfect in every way died the most horrific death devised by humankind. Now when Jesus is looked upon to see how good he is, God finds him 100% innocent, which is something we cannot acchieve by works.

I always thought it sounded a bit like suicide to me. Isn't that a sin? Another thing I don't understand. Sacrifice and suicide are almost synonymous. So how can suicide be a sin?

Thus you can see, God is now fully aware of how humans exist, having experinced one of the worst lives possible.

Okay. I can accept that. It's fishy, though.


Did you personally prove that humans have this genetic material called DNA? If not, then most likely you believed it when somebody told you, or you read it in a book, because it 'made sense' to you. That 'proves' that you, like most of us, are capable of believing something, even in the absence of 'proof'.

That's a poor analogy. There is proof of DNA because humans have seen it. We are able to print it. We can build entire genomes. We can alter DNA and create something new. We can take DNA strands and build immunities. The real difference between DNA and God is that we can see DNA, we can touch it, we can play around with it. Can we do that with God?

And everyone has a capacity to 'believe'. But some of us require everything to be proven before our eyes. We 'accept' Pythagoras' theorum because we can physically draw the sides of the triangle out and see that it indeed makes sense.

Someone mentioned the Chuch not representing God, but I was taught that the Pope speaks the word of God, so do correct me if I'm wrong.

Out of curiosity, what is the point your trying to make here? Do you agree with me or not?

I disagree. Strongly.

God went through long millenia of dissatisfication if he didn't like the 'false gods' everyone was worshipping. I always thought it would have been so much easier if he'd extended beyond Adam and Eve.

"God" didnt do that, people did, as they though it was what God wanted.


I thought you said it is impossible to get rid of our sins?

Its impossible for us to do it of our own work, all we can do is ask for God to do it for us.


This is kind of irrelevant to your argument, but you're saying yourself that God is trying to gain more followers by probing into the other religions. But the thing is is that it's quite futile, really. If those above the lava don't have enough faith in their own religions to know that if they do fall in they'll be okay, how can you expect them to take the rope and be able to have the preferred amount of faith in God? So really, whether they take the rope or not, they're still going to hell, aren't they.

He's not trying to "gain more followers" as you put it. He is trying to save more people. God isnt some kind of megolomaniac that gets high on controling people. God loves us all and wants us all to be in heavan with him. What he offers is salvation and its open to everyone. The offer is not removed just because you belong to another faith. Its open for you untill the day you die.


See, now you're contradicting yourself, and that is why your integrity is shot. Your'e saying you don't achieve salvation based on what you do in the world, but doesn't that count believing in Jesus Christ? Your reaction to sin is based on what you do in this world, isn't it. Unless you transfer to another world when you pray and ask forgiveness, then I'm afraid you'll remain on a completely different chapter.

Your not understanding what I said, which is partly my fault. When I said "what you do in this world" what I mean is that salvation is not given to you on the basis of your good works. God does not keep a chart of everyones good deads and if you do X number of Y quality then you get into heaven. Thats not how it works. How it works is that if we accept that we have sinned and ask God to forgive our sins and do both of those things sincerely then he will.


I always thought it sounded a bit like suicide to me. Isn't that a sin? Another thing I don't understand. Sacrifice and suicide are almost synonymous. So how can suicide be a sin?

Erm, Jesus did not kill himself did he. The Romans and the Jewish authorites did that

I disagree. Strongly.

You disagree that works are a symptom of faith and that without them you dont have proper faith. Because thats what I said.

I thought you said it is impossible to get rid of our sins?



This is kind of irrelevant to your argument, but you're saying yourself that God is trying to gain more followers by probing into the other religions. But the thing is is that it's quite futile, really. If those above the lava don't have enough faith in their own religions to know that if they do fall in they'll be okay, how can you expect them to take the rope and be able to have the preferred amount of faith in God? So really, whether they take the rope or not, they're still going to hell, aren't they.



See, now you're contradicting yourself, and that is why your integrity is shot. Your'e saying you don't achieve salvation based on what you do in the world, but doesn't that count believing in Jesus Christ? Your reaction to sin is based on what you do in this world, isn't it. Unless you transfer to another world when you pray and ask forgiveness, then I'm afraid you'll remain on a completely different chapter.




That's a poor analogy. There is proof of DNA because humans have seen it. We are able to print it. We can build entire genomes. We can alter DNA and create something new. We can take DNA strands and build immunities. The real difference between DNA and God is that we can see DNA, we can touch it, we can play around with it. Can we do that with God?

And everyone has a capacity to 'believe'. But some of us require everything to be proven before our eyes. We 'accept' Pythagoras' theorum because we can physically draw the sides of the triangle out and see that it indeed makes sense.

Someone mentioned the Chuch not representing God, but I was taught that the Pope speaks the word of God, so do correct me if I'm wrong.

It is impossible for US to get rid of our sins. God can forgive them.

preferred amount of faith? I don't know what you mean by that. If the rope (Christ) is there, and Steve (God) sent it, grabbing the rope is an act of faith and it will be sufficient.

He's not contradicting himself, you're just not understanding what he's saying. Your works (doing nice things for people) are not what save you. Accepting Jesus as your savior does that. After you've done that, then by virtue of your new life, being nice to people count for something.


Humans have seen DNA, but have you? Have you ever seen anything other than a drawing? Who told you about DNA? Why do you believe them? Are you 100% sure if you scrutinized the person that told you enough that you wouldn't find something about them you don't like or that you don't trust? If you found something about this person you didn't like would you stop believing in DNA?

having the capacity to believe is nullified if you have to have everything spelled out for you. That's not believing, that's being taught. That's different.

Only the Catholics contend that the Pope speaks for God. Not all Christians believe this. However, when the pope speaks, I'm inclined to give him a serious ear just in case.

It is impossible for US to get rid of our sins. God can forgive them.

preferred amount of faith? I don't know what you mean by that. If the rope (Christ) is there, and Steve (God) sent it, grabbing the rope is an act of faith and it will be sufficient.

He's not contradicting himself, you're just not understanding what he's saying. Your works (doing nice things for people) are not what save you. Accepting Jesus as your savior does that. After you've done that, then by virtue of your new life, being nice to people count for something.


Humans have seen DNA, but have you? Have you ever seen anything other than a drawing? Who told you about DNA? Why do you believe them? Are you 100% sure if you scrutinized the person that told you enough that you wouldn't find something about them you don't like or that you don't trust? If you found something about this person you didn't like would you stop believing in DNA?

having the capacity to believe is nullified if you have to have everything spelled out for you. That's not believing, that's being taught. That's different.

Only the Catholics contend that the Pope speaks for God. Not all Christians believe this. However, when the pope speaks, I'm inclined to give him a serious ear just in case.

Fine. I'll break his words down, rearrange them and try to match them with what you're saying. So basically, if I manage to accept that Jesus is the only thing that can save me, then I can sin all I want, but still be granted salvation? That's sick. That's very sick.

See, your belief in God. Is that not taught to you too? Everything IS spelt out for you as well. You have a pastor, you have a bible. I just need something more sufficient. I need someone to physically tell me 'I have interacted with God, I know what he looks like.' Not only have I seen videos, read books and papers, simulated basic mutation, eaten genetically mutated foods, seen chromisones in a microscope, but I've MET people who can tell me what it's like. I may not be able to see DNA myself for a few more years, but there's a difference there.

As for 'preferred amount of faith'. I meant how much faith is required to sincerely believe that Jesus is our savior. You aren't going to achieve that amount of faith if you didn't have it in the religion you were born into.

Thje thing is: People attack other peoples' beliefs because those beliefs are based on faith. However, both parties both believe in something that requires faith. Atheists trust what is written in science books. They trust that the scientists didn't just make it up. They have faith. What's the difference between believing everything a scientists tells you and believing everything that a priest or a pope tells you? You're still believing everything someone tells you. You didn't look in that microscope to see dna in action. You read it in a book. You heard a scientist tell you that. You saw pictures of it in a book. It could have been a clever hoax for all you know. Afterall, how fo you know that carbon dating is consistant? Maybe those dinos are really just one million years old.

Fine. I'll break his words down, rearrange them and try to match them with what you're saying. So basically, if I manage to accept that Jesus is the only thing that can save me, then I can sin all I want, but still be granted salvation? That's sick. That's very sick..

you're not really getting into the spirit of this are you? Have you not noticed the word sincerely being used in this thread? You have to sincerely accept Jesus. After you sincerely choose Jesus as your savior, then you endeavor to live your life without sinning.


See, your belief in God. Is that not taught to you too? Everything IS spelt out for you as well. You have a pastor, you have a bible. I just need something more sufficient. I need someone to physically tell me 'I have interacted with God, I know what he looks like.' Not only have I seen videos, read books and papers, simulated basic mutation, eaten genetically mutated foods, seen chromisones in a microscope, but I've MET people who can tell me what it's like. I may not be able to see DNA myself for a few more years, but there's a difference there.

yes, some of what I believe was taught to me. But I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem learning from books, teachers, pictures, or videos.

As for 'preferred amount of faith'. I meant how much faith is required to sincerely believe that Jesus is our savior. You aren't going to achieve that amount of faith if you didn't have it in the religion you were born into.

born into? My mother was raised Catholic, my father, Baptist. (yes they're both Christian...but here's why I bring them up) Because they could NOT agree AT ALL on religion and church, my sister and I didn't go at all. We didn't talk about God, we didn't go to church, God wasn't part of our lives until much later. You're not born into a religion and even if you are, you don't really make your decision on it until you've matured enough to make one. I was 31 when I finally decided I needed to make one. The "preferred amount of faith" would be ALL your faith. But that isn't what's required. A mustard seed will move mountains. ;)

Long post alert. First thing's first:

Thus justifying forcing one's views on another under the guise of trying to "save thier soul"
That's outside of the context of the analogy. But, for God (assuming there is one), who owns and knows the way out of the house, why the heck not? He would be entirely justifying forcing a viewpoint if he knew in absolute certainty that it would save them. By contrast, other people and Organised Religions can only guess the way out; it might be an informed guess, but it's still a guess. Attempting to force someone through the house and going the wrong way would be disastrous. Plus, if everyone tried to pull the stubborn partner at the same time, they'd all just burn.

So yes, God can and quite possibly should force beliefs if he does know without doubt or fallacy know what needs to be done and feels a genuine compassion for the human race, though humanity should definitely not.

No, I think you actually made it worse, unless your point isn't that you have a problem with Christ and God, but instead the Christian Church.
The problem is with the God portrayed by the Christian Church, which they would say is the correct one. To a Christian, I would say "Your God" is what I have problem with, not "God". God is probably quite a reasonable chap himself, but since all we have to go by on him are the statements of the Church, we have to treat the scenario as though God is exactly how Christianity and its institution treats him. Steve is not necessarily God, because I don't know God personally: he is the conceptual God as portrayed by the Christian faith, complete with all that is attributed to him through scripture.

For the sake of PREVENTING (editting that in... ^^; ) confusion, I'll talk about God as the indefinite spiritual entity and "God" as the God outlined in Christian scripture, teaching and ministry. Though I am personally surprised to hear that someone has found Jesus that has done so with no assistance whatsoever from the Church. The Bible is Christian, the sidewalk preachers are Christian, everything about Jesus seems to be advertised by Christianity and the Christian Institution as opposed to any other source, and the idea of coming to a historical and personal realisation of Jesus without a Scriptural one sounds astounding, if a little hard to believe. Maybe I've got your background wrong, but whatever. I digress. ^^;

So, Steve is "God" rather than God. Maybe it's easier for me to hear God in this sort of context and think "God", which is why my emphasis was slightly skewed, and I apologise for the confusion, but I think that may be why most Athiests/Agnostics understood my argument as it was initially made.

And, once again, you're making my point quite admirably. Hinduism is not saved, nor are those who do not wish to surrender their Hindu faith. Institutions may not need to be directly saved, but one of "God"'s conditions for throwing you the line is that you turn away everything associated with faiths to which Christianity is in opposition; not just any variation on what God is, but also a degree of the social and cultural ideas that lie behind that.

I completely fail to understand what is so totally immoral with some of these faiths that leads "God" to incite an out-and-out rejection of them and their followers. After all, they are just trying to find what I suppose could be described as God in whatever shape or form their culture and background lead them to search for, and if their vision of God happens to contradict some established ideas about "God", that should be entirely understandable.


So, here's what I'll do. I'll describe what "God" does that I find a problem, as best I can, then go on to explain what I think God would do.


"God" says that anyone who doesn't accept that Jesus died to give them a way out is doomed to the torment that follows death (be that life without "God", being submitted to horrendous torture by "God"'s enemies or whatever). This is explained by saying that when we die, we transcend to a spiritual plane of some description and are judged by that acceptance or lack thereof.

It therefore stands that a belief that Jesus died to save sins requires an emotional connection with God or the idea of God (note, not necessarily "God"), an existing philosophical structure wherein super-planar beings are accepted as plausible and a desire to seek for an explanation for the state of the world (through either interest, confusion or discontent), as well as the historical or scriptural accounts of his life, background and aftermath. How the second one comes about is anyone's guess, but Judaism was, in fact, the perfect fulfilment of that criteria.

Now, "God" does not provide an allowance for those who have not had all three extra criteria fulfilled. If you've never had the emotional connection, hard luck. Your cultural origins have led you to reject the idea of extra-spatial beings; tough cheese. You don't care about why the world is the way it is; too bad. Only one of these things can possibly be instigated by one's self; the other two depend entirely on environmental or social factors, and yet are essential to the belief in Christ's Salvation of Mankind.


God, on the other hand, would not use so exclusive a solution. Of particular concern to me is the second criteria there; the necessity for God as being "Up There" is obvious in Christianity and therefore salvation, even if he is "Down Here" too. The explanation for what Christ actually did on the cross is given at an extra-planar level that is required as an existing belief structure in order to understand; there are several leaps of faith to be made there. Furthermore, many people here have stated that a lack of emotional connection is a fundamental reason for their athiesm or agnosticism, and are understandably frustrated that such a gap would be responsible for not being caught on the way down to hell.

(( - This is all personal opinion rather than refutation -
What I think God would reward depends on two conscious decisions rather than three subconscious or external causes:

One - a response to the subtle evils within human nature (by which I personally mean a desire to contradict empathetic standards for whatever purpose). The ideal response is not one that runs in fear of them nor embraces them; it is one that strives to overcome it for the benefit of those around them.

Two - a genuine search to discover God in whatever form he is revealed to us in, regardless of cultural background or dogmatic nuances. ))


Yes, Christianity is not alone in its exclusivism. I have just as much of an issue with Islam and Judaism over this; probably significantly more so, in fact. However, in my society as in many others, there is a genuine fear that a trend of faith that would encourage spiritual development only in a very rigid and direct manner has taken hold. As long as the doctrine of "My way or the Highway" exists in them as foundations, I will continue to question both the structure of the monotheistic religions and the values of "God".

Since I'm off for the night, possibly off for a few days, I'll depart with a word of warning. Christian, Athiest or whatever; don't let your belief go unchecked. No matter how watertight you think your ship is, if you don't keep fixing the bits that get rusty, you're going to end up sinking. Constantly question it, and the answers you find will leave you all the stronger.

And a great big Shout Out to the Agnostics! Keep up the search!

Nope, sorry. We're full up. But we do have some openings in our young punks department. I got promoted out of there not too long ago and it left a major hole.

EDIT: I am so going to get locked up, because I'm going to do stuff like that all the time when I get really old. I'll also do stuff like forget and go out with no pants on and boxers with a flap that just won't stay closed. Or just start singing really loudly while I shop for motor oil and condoms. Oh, that's a great idea. When I'm like eighty I'm going to get one of my female counterparts to go down to the local drugstore and buy like fifty boxes of condoms with me.

Clerk: Um, we don't have fifty boxes of Extra Extra Large condoms, sir.
Me: How many DO you have?
Clerk: Only like fifteen.
Me: But that's only forty-five condoms. When will you have more?
Clerk: Two weeks?
Me: Sorry, Gertrude, but we're going to have to slow it down for the next fourteen days if we want to make them last.

And I'll make sure the woman I choose is using a walker. (Psst... Clerky boy, she didn't need a walker when we met.)

:D

I'm not suggesting you burn her to death. We're talking scale here Grave. I didn't suggest anything about children of children of children. I'm using an analogy. Do you allow consequences of her actions to play their course? Or do you run and sheild her from all possible unpleasantness? God doesn't burn us to death for disobeying Him either. We do not go to hell for our sins. We either choose to be with God, or we choose the opposite. The opposite has a negative consequence. The reason for this is not some sadistic egotistical plot to destroy sinners, when its all said and done, those who chose to be with God will be with God. Those who rejected God will have the choice they made honored by being removed from God. He loves you, He is giving you a choice, if you choose the negative road, then the consequences are on your head, not His. Unfortunately, this will also mean removed from all that is Good, because all that is good belongs with God.

You didn't suggest 'children of children', perhaps... but, once again, I point you in the direction of your Bible...

'God' does burn us in hell for disobeying him. Hell is part of Creation, and thus is part of his design. He could have protected ALL 'sinners' from Hell by simply NOT MAKING it, or by NOT consigning 'sinners' to damnation.

He chooses to consign 'sinners' to the Hell he constructed, therefore, he chooses to 'burn us in hell' for our transgressions.

Simply setting himself up as some kind of salve for that eventual demise, doesn't remove the fact that HE made the system that way in the first place.

If I push you off a cliff, but hand you a rope and offer to pull you up.... am I a good man? Should I recieve lauding and magnification for my benevolence?

Or do we account for the fact that I was the sicko that pushed you off in the first place?

well that exception is THE biggie. pay attention.

Don't even TRY to be patronising, my friend.

The 'exception' in question is ONLY the 'biggie' if you accept it as valid.

I consider it invalid.

The religion which Christianity has borrowed from, considers it as invalid.

Thus - this vengeful 'god' has no intercessor.


And - even if you did accept the hype, that 'intercessor' is, as I mentioned above, actually just the SAME non-independent source, just wearing different pants.

Don't worry, GnI will be a mystical, old fool before he (is it he? I have the worst memory for that crap.) will be a young punk again, methinks.

Well on my way to the mystical-old-fool already, I fear. :)

Oh yes, it is a 'he'. :)

I completely fail to understand what is so totally immoral with some of these faiths that leads "God" to incite an out-and-out rejection of them and their followers. After all, they are just trying to find what I suppose could be described as God in whatever shape or form their culture and background lead them to search for, and if their vision of God happens to contradict some established ideas about "God", that should be entirely understandable


You see there enlies your misunderstanding. God is not punishing them for belonging to another faith (he does not "punish" anyone, but for want of a better word, I will use it for now. If you want to see my explination as to why he doesnt punish, see previous posts I have made). He punishs you for having sinned. He doesnt catagorise people into diffrent faiths and then he choses to save one particular one. He catogirises people acording to whether or not they have asked for his forgivenes. If they have, then there sins are forgiven, if not then they still have there sins. There is nothing particually "immoral" in many cases about people who have not asked their sins to be forgiven. In many cases, non-Chrsitians and people who belong to other faiths are very nice people. But ultimately, you can never be "good" enough for God. To be saved by works means you would have to be without sin completely and thats well nigh impossible. God knows this and so dealt with the problem with Jesus's death. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong or immoral with the other religions that God is punishing them for. Its simply that they have sin which has not been forgiven. This is a mistake that many athiests make. People who go to hell may not be partically imorral or nasty, they may be good people by the worlds standards. But its not the worlds standards that matter, as far as salvation is concerned. You either have sin or you dont. And there is only one way for it to be taken from you.


Now, "God" does not provide an allowance for those who have not had all three extra criteria fulfilled. If you've never had the emotional connection, hard luck. Your cultural origins have led you to reject the idea of extra-spatial beings; tough cheese. You don't care about why the world is the way it is; too bad. Only one of these things can possibly be instigated by one's self; the other two depend entirely on environmental or social factors, and yet are essential to the belief in Christ's Salvation of Mankind.

This is why God instigated the great commision. The order that all those who follow him should try to spread his word to other people. Now I cant explain why some people dont feel an emotional connection to the idea of faith but let me tell you, I always believe strongly that if you seek you find. I cant say how much or how little to seek but if you do you will find. That I promise

Don't even TRY to be patronising, my friend.

People in glass houses, Grave.

'God' does burn us in hell for disobeying him. Hell is part of Creation, and thus is part of his design. He could have protected ALL 'sinners' from Hell by simply NOT MAKING it, or by NOT consigning 'sinners' to damnation.

He created hell originally as a prision for the devil, and all who rebeled against God. Of course it wasn't his intention that humans rebeled against God but hell is the place for all who rebel against God. Sin is rebelion agaisnt God. Ergo (you would think) all who sin go to hell. Except, thanks to Jesus's death that is not the case. If you want to blame someone for the existance of hell, blame lucifer, since it was his rebellion which nesseciated its existance.


If I push you off a cliff, but hand you a rope and offer to pull you up.... am I a good man? Should I recieve lauding and magnification for my benevolence?

Or do we account for the fact that I was the sicko that pushed you off in the first place?

Your analogy is flawed, God did not cause us to sin, thus the person was not pushed off the cliff.

Nope, not true. Well over 5000 eye-witnesses over a 3 day period. Some of which were enemies, non-believers, and even Romans. Why would Jewish people who were not followers suddenly change their mind AFTER He was dead? Explain that. Why did this 30 year old guy who claimed he was somebody he wasn't, flourish into a world wide faith and continue to flourish dispite all odds? Why did all 12 of the disciples go willingly to their death and refuse to admit it was all a lie? Who in history has ever knowingly died for a lie? These men all experienced gruesome deaths proclaiming they'd seen Him resurrected. Don't you think at least ONE of them woulda cracked and admitted to the truth?

5000 witnesses: show me independent, contemporary proof.

Why did this 30 something etc etc worldwide faith?

If THAT is your argument, you have to allow that Mohammed went from similar origins to similar glory, no?

So - by your 'logic of the ridiculous', Islam must be just as 'true' as Christianity?

12 disciples: Again, show me independent, contemporary proof.

You are aware that there have ALWAYS been martyrs dying for their faiths... by your logic, ALL of their faiths must have been valid too, no?

I also fear that you underestimate the capacity of humans to believe things... REGARDLESS of whether or not they are dcemonstrable or true.

If THAT is your argument, you have to allow that Mohammed went from similar origins to similar glory, no?


Islam has the testomony of one man in a cave and his claimed visitations from God, one of which described heaven as being "women and wine". It has absolutely no coroberation what so ever. If you want to complain about a religion having no corberation Grave, complain about Islam.

Don't even TRY to be patronising, my friend.

The 'exception' in question is ONLY the 'biggie' if you accept it as valid.

I consider it invalid.

The religion which Christianity has borrowed from, considers it as invalid.

Thus - this vengeful 'god' has no intercessor.


And - even if you did accept the hype, that 'intercessor' is, as I mentioned above, actually just the SAME non-independent source, just wearing different pants.

Hey look, if you consider it invalid, then you needn't worry about it right? I believe that intercessor is there. According to the book of that other religion, He fulfilled the prophecies they are still waiting on. If my belief is true, then things are as they are and you can accept them or not. If my belief is untrue, then things are still as they are and you shouldn't care what I think about your fate.

:fluffle: I'm a theist in your boat. Just as long as it floats.

Well, this TYPE of boat has been floating for millenia, and I've had a pretty good voyage in it so far... :)

Of course, the difference betwenn the world I see, and that offered by some others... is I make no PROMISES about the voyage.;)

12 disciples: Again, show me independent, contemporary proof.


I always laugh at this notion of yours Grave of "indepenednt contempary proof". The fact is we have four Gospels worth of proof. Let us supose we only had three (Say, Matthew, Mark and Luke for the sake of arguement) up untill reletively recently and then there is a major discovery when we discover John's gospel. My point being that if it wasnt originally considered part of the Bible then there is a great deal of liklyhood that you would have to consider it proof.

5000 witnesses: show me independent, contemporary proof.

Why did this 30 something etc etc worldwide faith?

If THAT is your argument, you have to allow that Mohammed went from similar origins to similar glory, no?

So - by your 'logic of the ridiculous', Islam must be just as 'true' as Christianity?

12 disciples: Again, show me independent, contemporary proof.

You are aware that there have ALWAYS been martyrs dying for their faiths... by your logic, ALL of their faiths must have been valid too, no?

I also fear that you underestimate the capacity of humans to believe things... REGARDLESS of whether or not they are dcemonstrable or true.

independent, contemporary proof? You want it all laminated on pastel colored paper too?

Mohammed never claimed to be the son of God. Mohammed wasn't crucified and resurrected. Mohammed did not fulfill ANY of the prophesies set down in the Tora (of which both the Bible and Qu'ran derived). They did NOT start with similar origins and they did NOT end in similar glory.

Do you understand what a martyr is? A martyr is someone who dies for their cause but they also have to BELIEVE in that cause. I said no one dies KNOWINGLY for a lie. Martyrs may die for a lie, but they don't KNOW its a lie. The disciples were tortured and killed professing they'd SEEN Jesus 3 days after His death. If they'd been making it up, they surely would've cracked under the strain. Peter was crucified like Jesus. Only he was crucified upside down. Don't you think somewhere in that torture someone would have said "OK OK! I give up! I made it up, I never saw him and neither did my friends!" Not one did. They went to their horrible deaths with Jesus' words still on their lips. No one dies KNOWINGLY for a lie.

I always laugh at this notion of yours Grave of "indepenednt contempary proof". The fact is we have four Gospels worth of proof. Let us supose we only had three (Say, Matthew, Mark and Luke for the sake of arguement) up untill reletively recently and then there is a major discovery when we discover John's gospel. My point being that if it wasnt originally considered part of the Bible then there is a great deal of liklyhood that you would have to consider it proof.


He doesn't consider the Gospels proof or contemporary. He won't accept anything as proof. He wants contemporary proof of something that happened 2000 years ago. ??? What could possibly fit that criteria? Paintings? Books written by historians of the day? (like Paul) Letters to groups of people? If you had video footage, that wouldn't work either. There's nothing you can come up with that he will acknowledge as contemporary proof. Yet he asks for it anyway... how's that for patronizing?

Islam has the testomony of one man in a cave and his claimed visitations from God, one of which described heaven as being "women and wine". It has absolutely no coroberation what so ever. If you want to complain about a religion having no corberation Grave, complain about Islam.

Of course, since you are so very discerning here... you ARE aware that:

In terms of pure corroboration, the Baha'i have you covered?

You guys are arguing for a literal translation of the Bible, that I don't agree with. I also hold that God cannot and will not ever be proven until the apocolypse. Given that, I totally disagree with almost every point you've made here. I don't think you are arguing for Christianity. I think you are arguing for fundamentalism and you're completely right, I'm not on your side. You are trying to prove God and the attempt is laughable. The garden of Eden never happened. It's a parable. The tower of Babylon never happened. It's a parable. I sincerely doubt the Great Flood was a flood of the entire world. I don't believe in Hell as a place that non-believers go.

You can find threads where I make much better arguments for faith than have been made here in the last thirty pages or so. Grave could support that, along with others here.

Your not going to win an argument with GnI or Willamena unless you're a lot more educated on the Bible and what it actually says.

Or maybe I'm just not you're kind of Christian. Forgive me if I take that as a compliment.

To be honest, Jocabia, you are arguably truer to the teachings of Jesus (with his insistence on non-reliance on the scriptures, and his belief that we shouldn't follow the teachings of others over our OWN relationship with God) than the bulk of 'christians' can honestly claim to be.

I don't know Willamena's 'qualifications'... but I DO know she is something of an expert on mythology - which seems to give her some overlap information on the Christian story... you are correct that she will require better knowledge of the material AND it's origins, than most 'christians' are capable of giving.

I suppose you mean seen Elvis after he died (otherwise your comparison does not hold). You don't actually believe that 'MILLIONS' have claimed to have seen Elvis since he died? That seems like a bit of an exaggeration.

I've told you a BILLION times, I never exaggerate... ;)

I don't know... the 'Millions' was speculative... but not unlikely based on the sheer volume of accounts of 'Elvis-sightings' there seem to be. If we assume that every REPORTED sighting is the tip of a sightings-iceberg, that is.

And, as with Christian viewings of the resurrection, how many of the sightings are RECORDED (seriously, how many actual 'testaments' of sighting do we have for the post-mortem Christ?), and how many are speculative?

I have a friend who has seen post-mortem Elvis... I have noticed that, within my group of friends, even the sceptics, this degree-of-separation witness is applied across the group.... you understand what I mean?

The idea that Elvis survives somehow gains credence to MANY from ONE reported witness.

Firstly, yes he does. Time and time again it is mentioned that God cannot stand "False Gods" or "Other Gods but He", that only those who become Christians can attain a place in the next life (possibly Jews, but I'm a little hazy on that front) and throughout the entire of the history of the Christian Church the idea has been to Convert people, taking from the people of other Faiths.

Yes, but that does not mean that God has gone all out using his power to destroy every other faith in the world. He has said that he hates "false Gods" but he does not destroy them. He merely tells people that he does not want them to worship them and then they choose how to behave


Secondly, aren't you contradicting yourself? You said it wasn't the level of sin, it was the response to sin; then, when I gave an explanation of the most important response to sin, you said it wasn't that either, and that only relationship with God does it. So the only correct response to sin is to jump straight into the arms of God? Sounds a little fishy... Every time Claire makes a mistake, she must genuinely swear an oath to Steve that she will do whatever he tells her for the rest of her life in order to be forgiven...

*Points above* If it was truly based on a response to sin, Jesus is just one way.

No he's not. Accepting Christ's salvation is the only way to actually get rid of sins. You can respond to sin by being as good as you can but that will not change the fact that you have sinned, and it will ultimately not save you. You only have to accept it once to be rid of all your past and futrue sins. However, if you have sincerely accepted salvation, you are not going to continue leading a sinful life. You are going to try your best not to, the point being to remember as I said that every sin is another splinter in Jesus's back.


But on the issue of the necessity of choice, imagine you and your partner are escaping from a burning house. Suddenly, without warning, your partner decides that they want to stay in the house, even if it's going to burn down around them. What do you do? You certainly don't say "Oh well, it's their choice, their life; I can always get another partner", you don't think "I must respect her right to choose". No, your choice is simple: stay and snap them out of it or grab them and run. Even if snapping them out of it doesn't work, you still end up taking them with you; forcefully, if you must.

Because, quite frankly, respecting someone's right to choose is absurd in some situations. If you know quite well that someone will be hurt, killed or worse by their decisions, you change them yourself and deal with the consequences of that later. If God is the kind who would let us stay in the burning house, then so be it.

Amazingly, you have more or less described God's problem with us. We are standing in the burning down house obstantely refusing to move and we will die. Now not only is God trying to rescue us (Jesus's death) but he has also given the order that all who are already rescued try to get people out as well (the great commision, spreading the word). However, because of the way he created us, having free will, he will not force us to leave. Why? Well God wanted people that would love him. Love cannot be forced, that is not what love is.


Interestingly enough, that's sort of my point and my problem. God Does Not Save Institutions, which is why they too are strung up over the lava. Some of these institutions have done a great service for our world, been great teachers and encouraged both their followers and others to seek the truth for themselves. Some of them have brilliant ideas and ways of looking at things that, though not taught by the Church, could certainly be seen as glorifying God. And yet, for a couple of reasons, they have reached different conclusions that could be seen differently to those reached by the Christian Church (Divinity of Jesus, the Personal nature of God, the nature of salvation/the afterlife etc.), and therefore all that they have for us has been rejected by God's representatives.

The Church has been set up in such a way that the way to God through Jesus comes at the exclusion of many other ideas that would aid mankind. The only way to God is through Jesus, the only way to Jesus is through the Church, and the only way to the Church is to denounce the ideas of your previous religious institution. Well-intentioned and helpful ideas are made to die as part of the path to God. That is Claire's problem, and that is also mine. Brian, for all his kindness and sincerity, is not Steve and disagrees with some aspects of Steve's life and character, and that for Steve is enough to refuse to throw him the line.

Again there is the same flaw. Steve (God) thows out the line of salvation to all, everyone, including those who are not Christians. But it is still up to them to accept it.


So I don't think that's a flaw in my analogy; to the contrary, it has led you to reiterate my point. Institutions have ideas, but because some of these ideas conflict with the Christian institution, we are to expect that they and their followers are not to be saved regardless of their virtues, many of which would go unheeded by the church. That seems grossly unfair. The church could learn from these virtues, and if they learned enough from some of them, they would realise that there's nothing stopping Steve unconditionally throwing them the rope either.

You dont understand what salvation is. Salvation is not based on what we do in this world. It is not based on people being good, kind and nice in general. Salvation is not decided by works. What salvation is decided by is you reaction to sin. Do you get rid of it (and there is only one way to get rid of it) and try then to do something about it in your life or do you ignore it and try to get rid of it by simpley being nice. Now of course it depends here on whether or not you are talking about the Chruch or God. The Chruch recognises that there are many in the world who do great things of great humanitarian good without being religious. And God recognises that as well. However, because of the nature of God, there is only one way for us to be "good" enough for heaven, by which I mean, be able to do enough good things in our lives. And that is this, we must be completely perfect. 100% good, no sin in our lives at all. And of course you may say to that "thats grossly unfair, no human can achieve that" and thats true. Its not unfair, its just the case, we cannot be "good" enough for God. However, God (being God) is naturally aware of this and so created another way for us to be saved. Basicly its a bargin, we are saved in exchange for Jesus's death. Jesus who was completely perfect in every way died the most horrific death devised by humankind. Now when Jesus is looked upon to see how good he is, God finds him 100% innocent, which is something we cannot acchieve by works. However we can acchieve it by grace. God is willing to put our name by Jesus's record. All we have to do is accept that he did it, and that he wants to put our name there. That he loves us enough to do that, to send his son to go through all that so we might know him. Now you might ask at this point that if it were just nessecary for Jesus to live the perfect life and die, why did he die in the most abhorent way possible. Well there are two reasons. One is that the perfect life, is to people, extremely abhorrent. As Christians we are told to be in the world but not of the world, and Jesus (being perfect) was like this in such an extreme that the world found him abhorent and thus plotted his death. Secondly, it is only fair for God to judge us if he himself is aware of how our existance feels. Jesus was homeless, everything he had was given to him or borrowed. He was born in a situation where the legitamacy of his birth was doubted, in a time when his people were under an occupation army, he was betrayed by his closest friends, and then later abandoned by them and died in the most horrific fassion without a friend in the world. Thus you can see, God is now fully aware of how humans exist, having experinced one of the worst lives possible.


However, perhaps the analogy might be more appropriate in some circumstances if I were to change Steve to the Christian institution and their ideas about God rather than God himself. Arguably, since the Churches' ideas about God are all we have anyway, this is a very minor switch, but with that in mind, think about this:

As the condition for her rescue, Claire must be with Steve and Only Steve. For Claire, if Steve was more like Brian in some aspects, that would be easier, because she likes things about Brian that she sees lacking in Steve. However, if Steve was sufficiently like Brian, he'd throw Brian the rope. Unless Steve throws Brian the rope, Claire sees in Steve a reason to stay with Brian rather than go with Steve.

Does that seem better?

I'm still unsure you understand salvation. You may not 'like' the fact that you see it as exclusive to the followers of Jesus but let me hit you with some knowledge. Firstly, Christianity is not the only religion to be exclusive about this. Islam is even more so since it demands that it's holy book (the Quran) can only be read in Arabic, and that any translation defiles it. Now its not even a basic understanding of arabic, but an extremely advanced one. So the Islamic God would not only have one path of salvation for you, but also have you understand it in only one tounge. Secondly, does not the fact that it is exclusive as you put it is a sign to its accuracy. The law of gravity is excluive, the laws of themodynamics are exclusive. Any truth is exclusive, and excludes the possibility of its opposite being correct. If you want more about the exclsivity of Christianity and why that it is not a flaw, read the 5th Chapter of Lee Strobel's "A case for faith" which is a work about theology and philosophy and not based on History or Science, so any claims it is unsceintific are wrong.

Imagine God as a loving mother. If she sees her children in front of fast-moving racing car she would do anything to rescue that child. Is she jealous that the car will take away the child's life so she can't have it?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Except, of course, that God cannot be imagined as THAT loving mother...

Unless that loving mother created immortal babies, and then mystically made them capable of dying because she got pissed at them...

And, as with Christian viewings of the resurrection, how many of the sightings are RECORDED (seriously, how many actual 'testaments' of sighting do we have for the post-mortem Christ?), and how many are speculative?

I have a friend who has seen post-mortem Elvis... I have noticed that, within my group of friends, even the sceptics, this degree-of-separation witness is applied across the group.... you understand what I mean?

The idea that Elvis survives somehow gains credence to MANY from ONE reported witness.

The flaw here though Grave is that we can actually prove that Elvis is dead by visiting his grave and excavating his body. However, do you know where Jesus's body is? No, and in fairness there is good reason why you dont, as 2000 years have passed. However, at the time, if the Romans or the Jews had wanted to put down the rising faith of Christianity (which they both did at times) then they could have easily just found his body. Both peoples had the resorces to do that easily but they failed. Why? Because his body isnt here...

Grave, would you kindly stop replying to posts made ages ago. Have you considered the reason they are in the past is that the discussion has moved on?

I do not believe in any god/s the reason for this is the simple fact that I think our minds seek to know the facts of the world we naturally want someone watching over us would you sleep in a tiny cave at night if you knew any second some creature could drag you of ? of course not would you except the fact that when someone you care about gets sick you can do nothing about it? of course not

You disagree that works are a symptom of faith and that without them you dont have proper faith. Because thats what I said.


That didn't look to me like that's what you were saying. Perhaps I agree. To a point. I rather think that one's faith and one's works go hand in hand. I think it best that I leave this thread at this point. Nothing will be accopmlished by you and I getting into a scriptural shootout. Also, I'm getting dangerously close to flaming you and others. You'll never convince me you're right, I'll never convince you I'm right. Let's just leave it at that, OK?

I dont believe in gravity, so I shouldn't fall out of bed in the morning if I roll over too far

This is rather stupid logic.

Such logic is only stupid if you do not ALSO assume that gravity DEMANDS belief.

See the difference?

Is it that Athiests don't want to believe and spend there time looking for contradictions and illogical references.


Is it that humans don't want to breathe underwater, and spend their time looking for ways to drown?

The problem is with the God portrayed by the Christian Church, which they would say is the correct one. To a Christian, I would say "Your God" is what I have problem with, not "God". God is probably quite a reasonable chap himself, but since all we have to go by on him are the statements of the Church, we have to treat the scenario as though God is exactly how Christianity and its institution treats him. Steve is not necessarily God, because I don't know God personally: he is the conceptual God as portrayed by the Christian faith, complete with all that is attributed to him through scripture.

I totally disagree with your statements here. Which Church? Catholic? Lutheran? Baptist? Are you suggesting they are all the same? That they all agree on the attributes of God. You know that not to be true because you've heard Christians disagree on dozens of points throughout this thread. You don't only have the Church to go on. You have the reason and intelligence given to you by God to look at the Bible in the context of the world and let it help you form your faith. Now my belief is that Christians should not worship either the Bible or the Church and thus should consider both fallible. Then how do we find our faith? How do we know we're right? History books aren't completely true but it doesn't mean I don't learn anything from them. I know JFK was the president but I can't be sure who killed him. I view it to be right about the important stuff.

For the sake of PREVENTING (editting that in... ^^; ) confusion, I'll talk about God as the indefinite spiritual entity and "God" as the God outlined in Christian scripture, teaching and ministry. Though I am personally surprised to hear that someone has found Jesus that has done so with no assistance whatsoever from the Church. The Bible is Christian, the sidewalk preachers are Christian, everything about Jesus seems to be advertised by Christianity and the Christian Institution as opposed to any other source, and the idea of coming to a historical and personal realisation of Jesus without a Scriptural one sounds astounding, if a little hard to believe. Maybe I've got your background wrong, but whatever. I digress. ^^;

I wholly disagree. So did Jesus.

Matthew 6:1-8 1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

So, Steve is "God" rather than God. Maybe it's easier for me to hear God in this sort of context and think "God", which is why my emphasis was slightly skewed, and I apologise for the confusion, but I think that may be why most Athiests/Agnostics understood my argument as it was initially made.

Of course they did. What interest do they have in actually correcting an analogy that makes God appear unreasonable even if it's inaccurate.

And, once again, you're making my point quite admirably. Hinduism is not saved, nor are those who do not wish to surrender their Hindu faith. Institutions may not need to be directly saved, but one of "God"'s conditions for throwing you the line is that you turn away everything associated with faiths to which Christianity is in opposition; not just any variation on what God is, but also a degree of the social and cultural ideas that lie behind that.

It only requires that you reject other Gods/deities (and the ropes they throw you that lead you away from safety), accept Jesus as the Savior (the rope God threw to us all) and turn away from sin (as best as humanly possible). We disagree on the nature of God, the nature of Jesus, the nature of sin, what qualifies as sin, how to treat sinners, how to bring people to the faith, how to celebrate the faith, how to study the faith, etc. God already threw you the line. The problem is that in order to take it you have to let go of the line any other Gods threw you.

I completely fail to understand what is so totally immoral with some of these faiths that leads "God" to incite an out-and-out rejection of them and their followers. After all, they are just trying to find what I suppose could be described as God in whatever shape or form their culture and background lead them to search for, and if their vision of God happens to contradict some established ideas about "God", that should be entirely understandable.

The immorality of a faith only lies in rejecting the true God. Now if you happen to call God, Jahovah or Steve, doesn't seem to matter so long as you get the things I enumerated above right.

So, here's what I'll do. I'll describe what "God" does that I find a problem, as best I can, then go on to explain what I think God would do.

"God" says that anyone who doesn't accept that Jesus died to give them a way out is doomed to the torment that follows death (be that life without "God", being submitted to horrendous torture by "God"'s enemies or whatever). This is explained by saying that when we die, we transcend to a spiritual plane of some description and are judged by that acceptance or lack thereof.

I don't agree. Don't accept all Christians with the same brush. I also don't hold that we are judged until the resurrection of Jesus.

It therefore stands that a belief that Jesus died to save sins requires an emotional connection with God or the idea of God (note, not necessarily "God"), an existing philosophical structure wherein super-planar beings are accepted as plausible and a desire to seek for an explanation for the state of the world (through either interest, confusion or discontent), as well as the historical or scriptural accounts of his life, background and aftermath. How the second one comes about is anyone's guess, but Judaism was, in fact, the perfect fulfilment of that criteria.

Now, "God" does not provide an allowance for those who have not had all three extra criteria fulfilled. If you've never had the emotional connection, hard luck. Your cultural origins have led you to reject the idea of extra-spatial beings; tough cheese. You don't care about why the world is the way it is; too bad. Only one of these things can possibly be instigated by one's self; the other two depend entirely on environmental or social factors, and yet are essential to the belief in Christ's Salvation of Mankind.

Not true. Christianity allows for sheep (those who did not have access to the word.)

Since I'm off for the night, possibly off for a few days, I'll depart with a word of warning. Christian, Athiest or whatever; don't let your belief go unchecked. No matter how watertight you think your ship is, if you don't keep fixing the bits that get rusty, you're going to end up sinking. Constantly question it, and the answers you find will leave you all the stronger.

Here, here.

Grave, would you kindly stop replying to posts made ages ago. Have you considered the reason they are in the past is that the discussion has moved on?

I don't feel the need to apologise to you for working full-time, or for studying, or for having a family or other responsibilities.

I respond to threads as, and when, I can.

Don't worry - I won't be responding to any of your posts, since it somehow offends you to have your previous assertions questioned.

To be honest, Jocabia, you are arguably truer to the teachings of Jesus (with his insistence on non-reliance on the scriptures, and his belief that we shouldn't follow the teachings of others over our OWN relationship with God) than the bulk of 'christians' can honestly claim to be.

I don't know Willamena's 'qualifications'... but I DO know she is something of an expert on mythology - which seems to give her some overlap information on the Christian story... you are correct that she will require better knowledge of the material AND it's origins, than most 'christians' are capable of giving.

Crap! Willamena's a she? The name would suggest so, but for some reason I thought I had learned somewhere she is a he. I'm not sure if I've ever actually called her a him, but if I have, Willamena, I apologize.

To the first part, I honestly try as hard as I possibly can to live in this way. I'll take what you said as a compliment if you don't mind.

I wasn't suggesting that the problem with some of these arguments were that that one side or the other had more knowledge, but that they relied so much on leaps of logic.

I've told you a BILLION times, I never exaggerate... ;)

I don't know... the 'Millions' was speculative... but not unlikely based on the sheer volume of accounts of 'Elvis-sightings' there seem to be. If we assume that every REPORTED sighting is the tip of a sightings-iceberg, that is.

And, as with Christian viewings of the resurrection, how many of the sightings are RECORDED (seriously, how many actual 'testaments' of sighting do we have for the post-mortem Christ?), and how many are speculative?

I have a friend who has seen post-mortem Elvis... I have noticed that, within my group of friends, even the sceptics, this degree-of-separation witness is applied across the group.... you understand what I mean?

The idea that Elvis survives somehow gains credence to MANY from ONE reported witness.

I see what you mean, but MILLIONS still seems a bit high. You still made your point.

independent, contemporary proof? You want it all laminated on pastel colored paper too?

Mohammed never claimed to be the son of God. Mohammed wasn't crucified and resurrected. Mohammed did not fulfill ANY of the prophesies set down in the Tora (of which both the Bible and Qu'ran derived). They did NOT start with similar origins and they did NOT end in similar glory.

Do you understand what a martyr is? A martyr is someone who dies for their cause but they also have to BELIEVE in that cause. I said no one dies KNOWINGLY for a lie. Martyrs may die for a lie, but they don't KNOW its a lie. The disciples were tortured and killed professing they'd SEEN Jesus 3 days after His death. If they'd been making it up, they surely would've cracked under the strain. Peter was crucified like Jesus. Only he was crucified upside down. Don't you think somewhere in that torture someone would have said "OK OK! I give up! I made it up, I never saw him and neither did my friends!" Not one did. They went to their horrible deaths with Jesus' words still on their lips. No one dies KNOWINGLY for a lie.

Once again... you are full of rhetoric, and shallow on evidence.

Where is your independent, contemporary evidence of any of your assertions?

I want to see your independent evidence of the deaths of the apostles.

Also - Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies of the Torah, either... in fact, he fell short on several points that EXPLICITLY prove him NOT to be Messiah... and that is if you believe the whole New Testament story to be ENTIRELY true, which I certainly do not.

Here we go again. :rolleyes:


Is this life for some of you? Because where I'm at, there is sun outside. Religion is a bet - you won't *know* whether it is true or false until the light at the end of the tunnel.

For me, I picked Pascall's wager, and now I'm going back to doing something besides flex my e-penis.

Perhaps some of us feel that we can help others, by teaching, by listening, by learning?

I do not begrudge the Christian for explaining salvation - he/she only wishes to save me from a terrible mistake.

Similalry, the Christian shouldn't begredge me for explaining the flaws in their faith - I only wish to save them from a terrible mistake.

Pascal's wager is fatally flawed, my friend... but feel free to set your faith in it.

Me, I'm going to continue trying to learn, and to assist.

Crap! Willamena's a she? The name would suggest so, but for some reason I thought I had learned somewhere she is a he. I'm not sure if I've ever actually called her a him, but if I have, Willamena, I apologize.

To the first part, I honestly try as hard as I possibly can to live in this way. I'll take what you said as a compliment if you don't mind.

I wasn't suggesting that the problem with some of these arguments were that that one side or the other had more knowledge, but that they relied so much on leaps of logic.

Yessit, Willamena is definitely a she. :)

Regarding your second point - I sense evidence in your posts, of your attempt to live true to the spirit... It is much the same way I try to live, but with a different 'motivator', if you will. I follow a Christlike path, not because I think he was the Messiah, but because he's a pretty good example of what I think people should be like, one to the other.

Take it as a compliment, my friend... I have had only good things to say about you, thus far. (And THAT, on a forum like THIS, is reason enough for praise)... :)

Regarding the 'knowledge' in the passage I posted.... Willamena has knowledge of the material... of the background... of the scenario. I wouldn't assume any one person had better 'knowledge of God' than any other...but she certainly knows where she is coming from.

And, so many of the Christians I debate with on here, take the bible as out-of-time... with no understanding of the historical or social legacy that leads to it, or from.

I see what you mean, but MILLIONS still seems a bit high. You still made your point.

Well, okay. :( Guilty as charged.

I can't verify the MILLIONS, but I wouldn't rule it out.

Let's take it as read that it's speculative.

And, thanks for fact-checking me. :)

(See - I appreciate it when people pick things up that weaken my posts... some others will attack for just that kind of feedback).

I always laugh at this notion of yours Grave of "indepenednt contempary proof". The fact is we have four Gospels worth of proof. Let us supose we only had three (Say, Matthew, Mark and Luke for the sake of arguement) up untill reletively recently and then there is a major discovery when we discover John's gospel. My point being that if it wasnt originally considered part of the Bible then there is a great deal of liklyhood that you would have to consider it proof.
*Cough*NagHammadiTexts:contradictoryevidence*cough*

There was a lot of misunderstanding (fine. two misunderstandings) over what I said regarding the 'preferred amount of faith'. It was bad phrasing, and I apologize. It's how much faith we need to put into Jesus. I.e. how much faith is required so that we can 'sincerely believe'. Some of you may say 'it all depends on you'. I know that, you don't have to tell me that, you've made it very clear. But If you can't put enough faith into your own religion, it is unlikely that you will be able to sincerely believe in Jesus' saving you. So you'll take the rope, you'll be inducted, but your sins won't really be 'purged', will they. You're kind of doomed either way in a way. Look at it from my viewpoint, I've tried yours. It's fairplay.

There was another misunderstanding somewhere along the end of my thread, but I can't be bothered to go back and check what it was.

There was something to do with Jesus' sacrifice. The way I see suicide is 'self-induced death', and that is what Jesus' death was. Self-induced. He may not have killed himself, but it was his purpose. But I know what you mean, and I will appreciate that.

I don't know how this turned into a Christian v. non-Christian thing. I have a problem with all religions and beliefs, including the god-less ones. I don't like Confucianism simply becaus eof his logic. I don't like Falun Dafa because my grandma was faithful to it, getting up at three in the morning to cleanse her body mind and spirit for four hours, but she's been in a coma in the hospital because of a stroke. I don't like QiGong even though I have 'seen' the Qi escape from my aunt because it just promises too much that makes absolutely no logical sense.

We were asked why we don't believe in God (or supernaturality) to begin with. Those of us who you Christians are bashing aren't atheist. We aren't saying 'God does not exist'. We are accepting the fact that he MAY exist, but we are not rooting our beliefs in it. I apologize if you think I was implying that God does not exist, I was just showing my skeptism on that issue.

I've learnt a lot from you guys. I will call it a truce for now, and maybe visit this thread later.

Kamsaki, I hear you.

Yeah that’s why I never deny the possibility that things will change in the future but what I know of myself says I am not a believer

Maybe time will change me

"Maybe time will change me".

Wiser words have never been spoken... that's about the most rational view I can imagine. :)

Yessit, Willamena is definitely a she. :)

Regarding your second point - I sense evidence in your posts, of your attempt to live true to the spirit... It is much the same way I try to live, but with a different 'motivator', if you will. I follow a Christlike path, not because I think he was the Messiah, but because he's a pretty good example of what I think people should be like, one to the other.

Take it as a compliment, my friend... I have had only good things to say about you, thus far. (And THAT, on a forum like THIS, is reason enough for praise)... :)

Regarding the 'knowledge' in the passage I posted.... Willamena has knowledge of the material... of the background... of the scenario. I wouldn't assume any one person had better 'knowledge of God' than any other...but she certainly knows where she is coming from.

And, so many of the Christians I debate with on here, take the bible as out-of-time... with no understanding of the historical or social legacy that leads to it, or from.

I don't really have a response to most of this, except thank you. I enjoy discussing things with you even if we don't always agree.

To the last paragraph, this is exactly my problem with so much of what they claim to know. It didn't exist in a vacuum. I also had someone use it in the same way to try and convince me Jesus was a massive conspiracy to lead the weak Jew astray and seperate the wheat from the chaff as they say. It was pretty funny how convinced they were.

Thje thing is: People attack other peoples' beliefs because those beliefs are based on faith. However, both parties both believe in something that requires faith. Atheists trust what is written in science books. They trust that the scientists didn't just make it up. They have faith. What's the difference between believing everything a scientists tells you and believing everything that a priest or a pope tells you? You're still believing everything someone tells you. You didn't look in that microscope to see dna in action. You read it in a book. You heard a scientist tell you that. You saw pictures of it in a book. It could have been a clever hoax for all you know. Afterall, how fo you know that carbon dating is consistant? Maybe those dinos are really just one million years old.

Flawed assumptions, my friend...

Many Christians are scientists, also... it is not just the realm of the Atheist... so it can hardly be described as 'doctrine for Atheists', now can it?

I am an Atheist, and I trust much of what I read in science books... but you should ask yourself WHY? The reason, in my case, is nearly two decades of practical scientific experience, and the fact that I still work IN science. I 'trust' a lot of things about 'science' that I have personally observed.

On the other hand, there ARE elements of science that are not very 'scientific', and are much closer to 'faith'... which I do not believe - although I am willing to accept them as possibilities... like Dark Matter, and Supermassive Blackholes.

How do I know Carbon Dating is consistent? Well - I've done it, and I've viewed a great deal of supporting data.

(And, of course, I have also looked very closely at those times where it is NOT reliable... one should never assume ANY blanket assertion, don't you think?)

I don't really have a response to most of this, except thank you. I enjoy discussing things with you even if we don't always agree.


Most welcome, my friend. And, the feeling is mutual. :)


To the last paragraph, this is exactly my problem with so much of what they claim to know. It didn't exist in a vacuum. I also had someone use it in the same way to try and convince me Jesus was a massive conspiracy to lead the weak Jew astray and seperate the wheat from the chaff as they say. It was pretty funny how convinced they were.

Always the risk when an artifact is taken separately from it's provenence... which is why I think it so important to know where a certain school of thought evolves from.

Hey look, if you consider it invalid, then you needn't worry about it right? I believe that intercessor is there. According to the book of that other religion, He fulfilled the prophecies they are still waiting on. If my belief is true, then things are as they are and you can accept them or not. If my belief is untrue, then things are still as they are and you shouldn't care what I think about your fate.

I'm not worried.

I'm merely looking at the OBJECTIVE truth of Christianity, which is a vengeful god that can ONLY be placated by stroking his ego... and against which there is NO recourse... except to appeal to his 'hand-puppet'.

Regarding your other comment, in there: "According to the book of that other religion"... Jesus is NOT Messiah. Re-read your Hebrew scripture, my friend....

Whether you believe Jesus was God... it is NOT supportable by reference to the Hebrew texts.

(If for NO other reason than the fact that NONE of Jeconiah's line can EVER sit on the Throne of David).

He doesn't consider the Gospels proof or contemporary. He won't accept anything as proof. He wants contemporary proof of something that happened 2000 years ago. ??? What could possibly fit that criteria? Paintings? Books written by historians of the day? (like Paul) Letters to groups of people? If you had video footage, that wouldn't work either. There's nothing you can come up with that he will acknowledge as contemporary proof. Yet he asks for it anyway... how's that for patronizing?

I don't consider the Gospels to be categoric proof, no... but that is because I have researched the provenence of those texts, rather than just BLINDLY assuming that they MUST all be accurate and contemporary, JUST because they are within the same binding.

Do you even know WHEN the Gospels were written? I doubt it, though you happily claim that they are contemporary?

I refute your accusation of being patronising... after all, it is you that has the unrealistic story to peddle, and no evidence.

All I ask is: Prove it.

There is a wealth of sceptical scholarly work out there, that throws a deal of doubt on just how 'contemporary' the Gospels are... and even WHO they were written by. Just give me PROOF.

There is a wealth of sceptical scholarly work out there, that throws a deal of doubt on just how 'contemporary' the Gospels are... and even WHO they were written by. Just give me PROOF.

Fine. The Gospels have been found quoted in various works of the time. Ignatius in his "seven letters" which was written in aproximately 100 AD quotes from all four of the gospels. Papias who was a disciple of John and lived between 70-130 AD wrote many pieces including a work called "an explination of the Lords discorses" which quotes John's gospel and others. Then there is Matthews Gospel. On Christmas eve 1994 the director of the institute for Epistomological research, Dr Carsten Peter Thiede released scientific evidence to the press that proved that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have was written not before AD 70. Then there is Mark's gospel which makes refernce to "A certian man from Cyrene, Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus". Now we know that Mark was the first man to compile a written piece on Jesus's life and he was not a disciple. Yet Matthew and Luke, who were contemparies of Jesus did did not mention him. For Mark to mention such an obscure name without any explination meant that he expected those who were reading this to be his immidate contemparies, thus he couldnt have written it more than 20 years after Jesus's death. Mark also fails to explain who Pilate was or give the name of the high priest (Matthew and Luke explain that Pilate was the Roman governer, and that the high priest was Caiphas) and again the most logical expliantion for this is that Mark's audiance did not need to be told who these people were. Since Pilate was removed from his post in AD 36 and Caiphas was no longer high priest in AD 37, if you go to far from those two dates, the lack of expliantion on Mark's part makes no sense.

Don't worry - I won't be responding to any of your posts, since it somehow offends you to have your previous assertions questioned.

Its not that, its that your slowing down the discussion that we are already having. By all means go back and quote my posts, but I just feel that your slowing things down unessecarlily.

Objections by Athiests:
'But we have no light.'

-Blaise Pascal, Pensees (244)

How true.

Just fodder for the cannons, but...

If a rational decision is one that has a positive outcome for the maker and has the most positive effect compared to other choices, why would a rational person choose to be an atheist? The logic chain goes something like this...
-If you believe in a god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is such a god, you are rewarded for your belief by that beneficial afterlife.
-If you believe in a god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is no such a god, you die incorrect in your belief, but suffer no consequence.
-If you believe there is no god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is such a god, you suffer a bad consequence.
-If you believe there is no god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and you are correct, there is no consequence.

SO ration/reasonable decision making, would suggest that atheism is irrational as the only outcomes it makes available are bad or of no consequence, while belief in a religion/god results in an outcome that is either good or of no consequence. A rational thinker, must by definition choose the decision that has the most likely positive outcome. The only way that the above argument gets complicated is if you believe there is a god and you might pick the "wrong" one and are punished for choosing the incorrect belief, but that argument should worry the atheists as it is contrary to their base position.

Barthaalamu Distalich
Faculty Director
College of High Minded Debate
Nation of Venator Sub Rosa
Isles of Dastardly Goodness

Just fodder for the cannons, but...

If a rational decision is one that has a positive outcome for the maker and has the most positive effect compared to other choices, why would a rational person choose to be an atheist? The logic chain goes something like this...
-If you believe in a god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is such a god, you are rewarded for your belief by that beneficial afterlife.
-If you believe in a god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is no such a god, you die incorrect in your belief, but suffer no consequence.
-If you believe there is no god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is such a god, you suffer a bad consequence.
-If you believe there is no god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and you are correct, there is no consequence.

SO ration/reasonable decision making, would suggest that atheism is irrational as the only outcomes it makes available are bad or of no consequence, while belief in a religion/god results in an outcome that is either good or of no consequence. A rational thinker, must by definition choose the decision that has the most likely positive outcome. The only way that the above argument gets complicated is if you believe there is a god and you might pick the "wrong" one and are punished for choosing the incorrect belief, but that argument should worry the atheists as it is contrary to their base position.

Barthaalamu Distalich
Faculty Director
College of High Minded Debate
Nation of Venator Sub Rosa
Isles of Dastardly Goodness


Pascal’s wager

Yes cannon fodder … before clearly posting it as well as you did I would have looked into the obvious flaws

1) like mentioned most of the major religions require the RIGHT god
2) that there is no cost if there turns out to be no god (not only have you wasted precious time but your faith may have directed you away from a more personally fulfilling way of life for no gain)
3) That we CHOOSE what we believe rather then believing what seems most right to us as an individual
4) That god will accept you “going through the motions” just to cover your basses without necessarily a true belief (relates to 3)
Not to mention the varying methods of salvation depending on which faith you are talking about (faith or works or a combination or birthright …. The list goes on)

They just complicate things because what counts for salvation for one religion may not “cut it” for salvation in another

Pascal’s wager

Yes cannon fodder … before clearly posting it as well as you did I would have looked into the obvious flaws

1) like mentioned most of the major religions require the RIGHT god
2) that there is no cost if there turns out to be no god (not only have you wasted precious time but your faith may have directed you away from a more personally fulfilling way of life for no gain)
3) That we CHOOSE what we believe rather then believing what seems most right to us as an individual
4) That god will accept you “going through the motions” just to cover your basses without necessarily a true belief (relates to 3)
Not to mention the varying methods of salvation depending on which faith you are talking about (faith or works or a combination or birthright …. The list goes on)

They just complicate things because what counts for salvation for one religion may not “cut it” for salvation in another

Might be worth just adding a little extra weight to the RIGHT GOD thing.

Pascal's Wager ONLY works if you assume the presence of ONLY ONE god... it doesn't account for the prospect of worshipping the devil (if you will), by worshipping the WRONG god.

So - all those Christians who die, and find out that they are consigned to an inferno for eternity, JUST BECAUSE they actually believed ONE book, and worshipped this Jehovah fellow, instead of the REAL 'god' HaSatan....

(Not that I believe EITHER one is 'real' - but, you get my drift).

I used to consider myself a Christian but then I began to think on the doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge: The assumption that God is omniscient. That exacerbated the doubts i had already. These latter sprang from the theodicy question. I pose this question to Christians.

If God was able to appear to John the Divine and say " Right this down, this is what's gonna happen when I finally defeat Evil" then, logically, how could God not know of all the misfortunes that would befall humanity( eg the Tsunami last December) between then and Armageddon :confused: It doesn't add up man!

I used to consider myself a Christian but then I began to think on the doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge: The assumption that God is omniscient. That exacerbated the doubts i had already. These latter sprang from the theodicy question. I pose this question to Christians.

If God was able to appear to John the Divine and say " Right this down, this is what's gonna happen when I finally defeat Evil" then, logically, how could God not know of all the misfortunes that would befall humanity( eg the Tsunami last December) between then and Armageddon :confused: It doesn't add up man!

Does it say he didnt know of them or are you just assuming that because they happened he didnt know of them in advance?

You cant just "choose" not to sin and it happen. It takes far more than that, and as a result of the fall its even harder. The trait the fall left in all humans was a tendency towards sin. Not a sin itself (like the idea of original sin), but a tendency to do so. So yes it is possible for someone not to sin, but practically impossible. And unless you have an extreme self opinion of yourself I dont think you can say you havent sinned.
I don't agree with your terminology. If a tendency towards sin is a trait that resulted from the "the fall," then humanity was modified. Adam and Eve were not human when they were in the garden (assuming we are the humans). Of course, that's simply incorrect because Adam and Eve had a tendency towards sin or they would not have eaten the fruit. So it is not a "result" of "the fall."

On the other hand, if you are claiming a non-literal meaning to this story, then it can make sense. Then the choice that Eve made is symbolic of the creation of that tendency towards sin. Then the story is a valid myth.

I don't agree with your terminology. If a tendency towards sin is a trait that resulted from the "the fall," then humanity was modified. Adam and Eve were not human when they were in the garden (assuming we are the humans). Of course, that's simply incorrect because Adam and Eve had a tendency towards sin or they would not have eaten the fruit. So it is not a "result" of "the fall."

No, they had the ability to sin, but the fall left the imprint on the rest of humanity so that now we not only have the ablity to sin but the tendenency to also

I do not believe in any god/s the reason for this is the simple fact that I think our minds seek to know the facts of the world we naturally want someone watching over us would you sleep in a tiny cave at night if you knew any second some creature could drag you of ? of course not would you except the fact that when someone you care about gets sick you can do nothing about it? of course not
The thing that stood out for me in this post is sleeping in a cave with someone "watching over" me. That is the version of God that I rejected as a very young child; I found it scary. The thought of this fellow watching me, all of us, all the time, living up in the clouds with a magical eye on everything. It's downright frightening, not comforting. This is not the justification for religion.

Our minds seek to know the facts of the world; but, they also seek to know the meaning of the world. This (the meaning) is the justification for religion. Our minds assign symbols to things, because that's the way they understand things. In religion, we seek a meaningful relationship with something that transcends our being.

Crap! Willamena's a she? The name would suggest so, but for some reason I thought I had learned somewhere she is a he. I'm not sure if I've ever actually called her a him, but if I have, Willamena, I apologize.
No problem. I'm not hung up on genders when it comes to Internet forums.

We were asked why we don't believe in God (or supernaturality) to begin with. Those of us who you Christians are bashing aren't atheist. We aren't saying 'God does not exist'. We are accepting the fact that he MAY exist, but we are not rooting our beliefs in it. I apologize if you think I was implying that God does not exist, I was just showing my skeptism on that issue.

I've learnt a lot from you guys. I will call it a truce for now, and maybe visit this thread later.

Kamsaki, I hear you.

I havn't seen any "bashing" from either side of the debate. Who bashed who? The debate may get a little heated but that's to be expected when arguing beliefs.

I havn't seen any "bashing" from either side of the debate. Who bashed who? The debate may get a little heated but that's to be expected when arguing beliefs.
Absolutely if someone on either side cant stand to have their feelings perceptions and beliefs challenged they better take a look and make sure their “beliefs” or perceptions are really what they think they were

(I am sure this is not exactly how I wanted to phrase it but 48 hrs awake I am mumbling )

Originally posted by : ChuChulainn

Does it say he didn't know of them, or are you just assuming that because they happened he didn't know of them in advance?

I'm saying that a being as powerful as that described in the Bible must know of everything before it happens if It knows what will happen at the end of the world. At the same time, I feel that a god as loving as that described in the New Testament wouldn't stand by whilst such natural disasters happen.

Conclusion? I decided that
A) There is not a God or
B) There is but not the god of any of the world's religions.

So I guess I'm agnostic

I don't consider the Gospels to be categoric proof, no... but that is because I have researched the provenence of those texts, rather than just BLINDLY assuming that they MUST all be accurate and contemporary, JUST because they are within the same binding.

Do you even know WHEN the Gospels were written? I doubt it, though you happily claim that they are contemporary?

I refute your accusation of being patronising... after all, it is you that has the unrealistic story to peddle, and no evidence.

All I ask is: Prove it.

There is a wealth of sceptical scholarly work out there, that throws a deal of doubt on just how 'contemporary' the Gospels are... and even WHO they were written by. Just give me PROOF.

I havn't once claimed the gospels to be contemporary. Most were written between 30 and 80 years after Jesus' death.

I call you patronising because you're asking for contemporary proof and you know beforehand that there's nothing that you will accept. You put a quallifier that negates anything out there. How is there "contemporary proof" of a man that lived 2000 years ago? Other than claims all throughout the bible of cities and sites that were once believed to be fiction but have been found by archaeologists. With the exception of archaeology, there's no way to come up with your criteria. But not having contemporary proof is not sufficient to discount history. Not having "contemporary proof" doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I used to consider myself a Christian but then I began to think on the doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge: The assumption that God is omniscient. That exacerbated the doubts i had already. These latter sprang from the theodicy question. I pose this question to Christians.

If God was able to appear to John the Divine and say " Right this down, this is what's gonna happen when I finally defeat Evil" then, logically, how could God not know of all the misfortunes that would befall humanity( eg the Tsunami last December) between then and Armageddon :confused: It doesn't add up man!

??? :confused:

Why are you assuming God did not know about the Tsunami last December. How are you tying that in with Jesus appearing to John? At present, Jesus has not defeated evil. I have no doubt He will, but so far, we're still stuck with it.

Just fodder for the cannons, but...

If a rational decision is one that has a positive outcome for the maker and has the most positive effect compared to other choices, why would a rational person choose to be an atheist? The logic chain goes something like this...
-If you believe in a god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is such a god, you are rewarded for your belief by that beneficial afterlife.
-If you believe in a god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is no such a god, you die incorrect in your belief, but suffer no consequence.
-If you believe there is no god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and there is such a god, you suffer a bad consequence.
-If you believe there is no god/religion that offers a beneficial afterlife and you are correct, there is no consequence.

SO ration/reasonable decision making, would suggest that atheism is irrational as the only outcomes it makes available are bad or of no consequence, while belief in a religion/god results in an outcome that is either good or of no consequence. A rational thinker, must by definition choose the decision that has the most likely positive outcome. The only way that the above argument gets complicated is if you believe there is a god and you might pick the "wrong" one and are punished for choosing the incorrect belief, but that argument should worry the atheists as it is contrary to their base position.
No consequence is a good consequence (better than the alternative).

Logic cannot always be used to justify rationale. Irrational does not equal illogical.

I havn't once claimed the gospels to be contemporary. Most were written between 30 and 80 years after Jesus' death.

I call you patronising because you're asking for contemporary proof and you know beforehand that there's nothing that you will accept. You put a quallifier that negates anything out there. How is there "contemporary proof" of a man that lived 2000 years ago? Other than claims all throughout the bible of cities and sites that were once believed to be fiction but have been found by archaeologists. With the exception of archaeology, there's no way to come up with your criteria. But not having contemporary proof is not sufficient to discount history. Not having "contemporary proof" doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And most of the Gospels were not written by apostles, and most of them were based on other documents, etc.

That's my point - the evidence for Jesus AT ALL is sketchy, and heavily biased... in no way more so than the way in which history is SKEWED in an attempt to make the evidence seem more reliable.

We KNOW that the Mark, Matthew and Luke documents all follow some other document... (which is commonly called "Q" at the moment). We KNOW that the Mark text was written first, and embellished on by the authors of Matthew and Luke (of 661 verses of Mark, only 24 verses are NOT quoted in Matthew or Luke). We KNOW that Mark was not an apostle of Jesus, but an apostle of Paul... and the common idea is that his gospel is based on the teachings of Peter. We can be fairly sure that Matthew is NOT the Matthew (called Levi) of Matthew 9:9 - because an actual witnes would have NO NEED to quote events from the Gospel of Mark. We KNOW that the John of the Book of John is NOT the same John who claims to have seen Revelation (for stylistic reasons, and for the use of language) - and that the Gospel of John was most likely written by John's disciples after his death, from hearsay evidence. We KNOW that Luke wasn't an apostle, and yet we accept his texts as apostolic - despite the fact that he disagrees over important events like the birth of Jesus.

Examination of the text seems to show that Paul was unaware of the Gospels being written, and that the Gospel writers were equally unaware of Paul's letters. We KNOW that the language of the letter to the Hebrews, doesn't fit with ANY of the other Bible scholars... yet convenience makes it a Pauline document, DESPITE the evidence against it.


So - what we have is a collection of texts that were almost certainly NOT written by the alleged authors, over roughly half a century (or more) from the date of the alleged incident.

You are correct, I ask for something that ISN'T forthcoming. I want evidence that supports this rag-tag collection of half-memories and hearsay.

It has been claimed in this thread, that such evidence exists... in the form of Roman records... well, I'm telling you, I've been looking for just such evidence for a couple of decades now, and found NOTHING substantial.

If you want to believe your 'book', then feel free... but don't try to peddle it as contemporary, or as independent, or even as reliable or historical - because there is NO corroboration for such claims.

There is a wealth of sceptical scholarly work out there, that throws a deal of doubt on just how 'contemporary' the Gospels are... and even WHO they were written by. Just give me PROOF.

Fine. The Gospels have been found quoted in various works of the time. Ignatius in his "seven letters" which was written in aproximately 100 AD quotes from all four of the gospels. Papias who was a disciple of John and lived between 70-130 AD wrote many pieces including a work called "an explination of the Lords discorses" which quotes John's gospel and others. Then there is Matthews Gospel. On Christmas eve 1994 the director of the institute for Epistomological research, Dr Carsten Peter Thiede released scientific evidence to the press that proved that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have was written not before AD 70. Then there is Mark's gospel which makes refernce to "A certian man from Cyrene, Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus". Now we know that Mark was the first man to compile a written piece on Jesus's life and he was not a disciple. Yet Matthew and Luke, who were contemparies of Jesus did did not mention him. For Mark to mention such an obscure name without any explination meant that he expected those who were reading this to be his immidate contemparies, thus he couldnt have written it more than 20 years after Jesus's death. Mark also fails to explain who Pilate was or give the name of the high priest (Matthew and Luke explain that Pilate was the Roman governer, and that the high priest was Caiphas) and again the most logical expliantion for this is that Mark's audiance did not need to be told who these people were. Since Pilate was removed from his post in AD 36 and Caiphas was no longer high priest in AD 37, if you go to far from those two dates, the lack of expliantion on Mark's part makes no sense.

No, they had the ability to sin, but the fall left the imprint on the rest of humanity so that now we not only have the ablity to sin but the tendenency to also
An imprint on the psyche? Then it is not a change of trait, and it is symbolic. Okay, then.

An imprint on the psyche? Then it is not a change of trait, and it is symbolic. Okay, then.

I'm not sure what your saying, but this is what I think happened

- When A&E were created, they had free will
- God gave them a command not to eat from a specific tree
- Because A&E had free will, it means they had the ability to sin
- Eve was tempted into eating the fruit by the serpent, thus causing her to sin
- When she sinned, it left an imprint on the rest of humanity, leaving us with a tendency to sin

I'm not sure what your saying, but this is what I think happened

- When A&E were created, they had free will
- God gave them a command not to eat from a specific tree
- Because A&E had free will, it means they had the ability to sin
- Eve was tempted into eating the fruit by the serpent, thus causing her to sin
- When she sinned, it left an imprint on the rest of humanity, leaving us with a tendency to sin
What you are describing is her learning; and we, in learning about her, learn about it. Yes, learning becomes a part of "who we are" and changes us forever. But it cannot make a change inherent in us, except in a symbolic sense ...in the context of the myth. It symbolises a change in psyche from incapable of sin to capable of sin.

Traits are things that describe another thing: a human has all the traits of a human. If it gains or loses a trait, it is no longer human. It is not like an individual losing hair; if all humanity lost the capacity to have hair, a basic mammilian trait (talking impossibilities here), then it is no longer humanity as we know it. We can redefine what it is to be humanity, then, or make an exception, but it is no longer the same thing it was.

It symbolises a change in psyche from incapable of sin to capable of sin.

Humans have always been capable of sinning, becuase all humans have free will. That's not what has changed here


Traits are things that describe another thing: a human has all the traits of a human. If it gains or loses a trait, it is no longer human. It is not like an individual losing hair; if all humanity lost the capacity to have hair, a basic mammilian trait (talking impossibilities here), then it is no longer humanity as we know it. We can redefine what it is to be humanity, then, or make an exception, but it is no longer the same thing it was.

Well then I think its the trait of humans we are talking about here. What she did created several changes in all humans, one of which was it left us all with a tendency to sin.

I dont know how often I am going to explain this, but for the [large number] time, God does not punish anyone.

I did also ask why God would "fail to reward" someone.

Going to hell is a natural state for those who rebel against God. It was originally created for the devil and his co-conspirtors, but they were not the only ones who choose to rebel against God. Its not God sending you there, its you falling there. Its like droping a ball. It will fall downwards for no other reason but gravity is pulling it down, and gravity is a natural force.

Did God not create the Universe? Is He not thus responsible for whether balls fall or rebels against God go to Hell?

God desprately doesnt want you to go to hell and to that end he sent Jesus to die to create a system where you dont have to. But because of the way he created us (with free will) he cannot force us to be saved. We have to accept it ourselves. He wants to save us. Remember that, wants, not needs. He wants to save us because he loves us. This is a God who created a people who when presented with himself in perfect human form then turned around and killed him.

Why does free will need eternal punishment, or eternal "absense of God", or whatever you want to call it? God could give us free will and then treat us all exactly the same after death, regardless of how we behaved on earth, or whether or not we accepted salvation. What is the point of dividing the dead into saved and damned, sheep and goats, wheat and chaff?

He has provided the Bible and has entered this world himself. If you want more than that, study and pray. Thats all I can suggest to you. But I will say that if you enter into that study and prayer with a mind that is unwilling to accept God's existance then your not going to get very far.

I don't understand this insistance on the absolute literal truth of one interpretation of one version of a bunch of old myths that are demonstrably untrue. Jocabia, for example, seems perfectly capable of living a good Christian life without abandoning human (and, for Christians, God-given) reason. His seems to me to be a real, strong, robust, self-supporting faith. Biblical literalists, on the other hand, seem to me to protest too much. Maybe they are afraid deep down that their religion is flawed, or even false: hence the obsessive need to loudly and publicly affirm belief in stories that are obviously myths.

I've asked you this before, but you never answered. Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again. According to you, Jesus was God. Jesus told parables. These were not literally true. So in the New Testament, God tells stories which were not literally true but which illustrate a point or communicate a message. Do you not think it's possible that at least some parts of the Old Testament are also stories which are not literally true, but which were told -- by God, if you like -- in order to illustrate a point or communicate a message?

I did also ask why God would "fail to reward" someone.

Did God not create the Universe? Is He not thus responsible for whether balls fall or rebels against God go to Hell?

Why does free will need eternal punishment, or eternal "absense of God", or whatever you want to call it? God could give us free will and then treat us all exactly the same after death, regardless of how we behaved on earth, or whether or not we accepted salvation. What is the point of dividing the dead into saved and damned, sheep and goats, wheat and chaff??

Its a little thing called "justice". God created hell originally for Lucifier and all those others who rebeled against God. Of course, God cannot have one set of rules for them and another one for us. We are just as guilty as lucifer, in that we too have rebeled against God.


I've asked you this before, but you never answered. Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again. According to you, Jesus was God. Jesus told parables. These were not literally true. So in the New Testament, God tells stories which were not literally true but which illustrate a point or communicate a message. Do you not think it's possible that at least some parts of the Old Testament are also stories which are not literally true, but which were told -- by God, if you like -- in order to illustrate a point or communicate a message?

You forget that Jesus's parables were clearly described as being parables and having a specific meaning after each one. If the Old Testement were parables as you say, then it would most likely say so. And also, if it were a parable then there would be no reason for the entire new tesement to accurately follow the history of the anchient near east at the time.

Its a little thing called "justice". God created hell originally for Lucifier and all those others who rebeled against God. Of course, God cannot have one set of rules for them and another one for us. We are just as guilty as lucifer, in that we too have rebeled against God.

So: Lucifer and others rebelled against God. God creates a place of torment for them, and consigns them to it for all eternity. And God also arranges the laws of the universe so that anyone else who rebels against him is consigned to Hell for all eternity too.

"Justice" is not an absolute entity; it is created by the person, organisation or society that makes the law. Eternal torment -- infinite, everlasting, non-stop, inescapable, forever and ever and ever and ever -- is clearly, obviously unjust. Please consider the meaning of the word "eternal". Any intelligent being which would allow such a thing to take place, and furthermore arrange the universe in such a way that billions more conscious beings would suffer the same fate (or even just run the risk of suffering the same fate), is a little thing called "evil".

Of course, God cannot have one set of rules for them and another one for us. We are just as guilty as lucifer, in that we too have rebeled against God.

Are you making up rules for God now? Lucifer saw God, spoke with God, was possibly on first-name terms with God. His rebellion was an active, conscious deed. How is the failure to believe in a bunch of disputed, variously edited stories -- many of which fly in the face of common sense and experience -- comparable to Lucifer's rebellion?

You forget that Jesus's parables were clearly described as being parables and having a specific meaning after each one. If the Old Testement were parables as you say, then it would most likely say so.

I think you are forgetting that your copy of the Bible, with the little headings saying "The Parable of the Good Samaritan" and the like, is a fairly recent edition. Take a look at some of the other bibles produced over the last 2,000-odd years. Try, for example, the ones without any punctuation, or spaces between the words.

As for the Genesis myths: you don't think the fact that the stories are demonstrably untrue gives the game away? What with the talking snake and the magic apples and all? The fact that they are obviously, manifestly, blatantly mythological in form and structure isn't enough for you? Maybe God expected a bit more common sense.

And also, if it were a parable then there would be no reason for the entire new tesement to accurately follow the history of the anchient near east at the time.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How does the New Testament "accurately follow the history of the ancient Near East at the time"? And how would that prevent parts of the Old Testament from being parables?

As for the Genesis myths: you don't think the fact that the stories are demonstrably untrue gives the game away? What with the talking snake and the magic apples and all? The fact that they are obviously, manifestly, blatantly mythological in form and structure isn't enough for you? Maybe God expected a bit more common sense.



I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How does the New Testament "accurately follow the history of the ancient Near East at the time"? And how would that prevent parts of the Old Testament from being parables?

Genesis does not speak of either an apple or a snake. The "apple" is called forbidden fruit. Apple was added later on I believe when they started making cartoon animations of it. Also the serpent is not a snake. In this text, serpent means "shimmering one".

I'm not going to participate much in this topic since, at least for me, the evidence that any God does not exist is very logical and right... but I will give this site:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/overview.html - it's made by an atheist who takes a neutral position in the whole debate. He answers various questions that one might ask an atheist/agnostic without offending or lying the reader...

And here are some other atheist sites:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheism_index.htm
http://www.atheists-online.com/links.asp
http://www.losingmyreligion.com/index.htm
http://www.mega.nu:8080/atheist_quotes_1.html
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Debate.html
http://www.evilbible.com/
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ten_commandments.html
http://jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html
http://www.religionisbullshit.com/

I'm pretty sure you'll find ALL the answers to your questions on atheism or agnosticism somewhere in those sites.

Humans have always been capable of sinning, becuase all humans have free will. That's not what has changed here
I agree, entirely. Adam and Eve were capable of sin, they were the same when they came out of the garden as when they went in. The capacity for sin was not gained after "the fall," and the tendency for same is not a trait. It was just that terminology I had to pick on.

Well then I think its the trait of humans we are talking about here. What she did created several changes in all humans, one of which was it left us all with a tendency to sin.
I think this tendency is not a change, that it is an inherent behaviour because of the capability to sin. I think that humans will naturally explore all facets of their being to discover which work for them, and which don't, and I would expect that of any being.

But maybe that's just me.

Originally posted by: Hoberbudt

Why are you assuming God didn't know about the Tsunami last December?

Did u read my follow-up post to ChuChulainn's question? I think I stated pretty clearly in there that according to Christianity, God knows what will happen in the future( I doubt you disagree, but that's the tie-in with Jesus and John the Divine. He is able to tell John what will happen at the end of the world, thus he knows the future)


I was saying in my post that the fact that God knows what will happen in future is one of the main reasons I lost faith. According to the Bible, the two images of God are:

The loving, suffering servant
The destroyer of vice( Nathaniel Hawthorne and Dante's God)

Either way u look at it, the Christian God is in no way apathetic according to Scripture. I just couldn't reconcile Divine Foreknowledge and the theodicy question. That's it in a really big nutshell.

I don't understand this insistance on the absolute literal truth of one interpretation of one version of a bunch of old myths that are demonstrably untrue. ... Biblical literalists, on the other hand, seem to me to protest too much. Maybe they are afraid deep down that their religion is flawed, or even false: hence the obsessive need to loudly and publicly affirm belief in stories that are obviously myths.

I've asked you this before, but you never answered. Maybe you missed it, so I'll try again. According to you, Jesus was God. Jesus told parables. These were not literally true. So in the New Testament, God tells stories which were not literally true but which illustrate a point or communicate a message. Do you not think it's possible that at least some parts of the Old Testament are also stories which are not literally true, but which were told -- by God, if you like -- in order to illustrate a point or communicate a message?
Ordinarily I'd ignore this and let the Christian (in this case) side defend themselves; but, in this case, it is mythology that needs defending.

Yes, you are correct. Myth does not equate to "lie" in the context of a mythology, a collection of religious texts. Here, it does not indicate an untruth of any sort. What it does is point past the literal, metaphorically, to a truth behind it that is not the literal. The literal, then, becomes unimportant (not untrue) except as a symbol, and the truth behind it all that matters.

Yes, there is much in the texts that is myth. This is A GOOD THING :) for both the religious person, as it supports and upholds their understanding and belief of the non-literal meaning of the texts, and for the atheist, who can learn a thing or two about symbolism and non-materialism without having to surrender his beliefs.

Oh well.

The fourth site down on Senkai's list had some really sage quotes but I've got one querie about it: A lot of the quotes were from Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. They weren't Christians but they technically weren't atheists either. Hmmm...

Not really. I mean, there were some quotes from Albert Einstein and many, many other people or documents.

So: Lucifer and others rebelled against God. God creates a place of torment for them, and consigns them to it for all eternity. And God also arranges the laws of the universe so that anyone else who rebels against him is consigned to Hell for all eternity too

"Justice" is not an absolute entity; it is created by the person, organisation or society that makes the law. Eternal torment -- infinite, everlasting, non-stop, inescapable, forever and ever and ever and ever -- is clearly, obviously unjust. Please consider the meaning of the word "eternal". Any intelligent being which would allow such a thing to take place, and furthermore arrange the universe in such a way that billions more conscious beings would suffer the same fate (or even just run the risk of suffering the same fate), is a little thing called "evil".

Dont you think God saw this happening. God knew what was going to happen which is why he sent Jesus into the world. Beyond that he wont do any more because he created us with free will and we ourselves have to choose to get out, he wont force us out

Are you making up rules for God now? Lucifer saw God, spoke with God, was possibly on first-name terms with God. His rebellion was an active, conscious deed. How is the failure to believe in a bunch of disputed, variously edited stories -- many of which fly in the face of common sense and experience -- comparable to Lucifer's rebellion?

It is not your "failure to believe" as you put it which is your rebellion, your sin is your rebellion. Sin is your rebellion. If you fail to accept salvation then you are ignoring your rebellion. You are just disobeying God, which is rebellion against him. Granted not as seriously as Lucifer, but the principle is the same. If you accept salvation however God forgives you of your sin.

I think you are forgetting that your copy of the Bible, with the little headings saying "The Parable of the Good Samaritan" and the like, is a fairly recent edition. Take a look at some of the other bibles produced over the last 2,000-odd years. Try, for example, the ones without any punctuation, or spaces between the words

I am not talking about the headings. I am talking about the fact that in the parables, Jesus useually afterwards says what it is he meant

As for the Genesis myths: you don't think the fact that the stories are demonstrably untrue gives the game away? What with the talking snake and the magic apples and all? The fact that they are obviously, manifestly, blatantly mythological in form and structure isn't enough for you? Maybe God expected a bit more common sense

The snake was the Devil, as is described in Isiah and Revelation, and the fruit itself was not "magic". What was "magic" about it as you put it is God's command about it. The fruit itself was not special, it only was special insofar as God had made a command about it.


I'm sorry, I don't understand this. How does the New Testament "accurately follow the history of the ancient Near East at the time"? And how would that prevent parts of the Old Testament from being parables?

I am talking about the Old Tesement. It accurately describes Israel's history in the books such as Kings 1 and 2 and Chronicles 1 and 2 and indeed in the activities and concerns of the prophets.

Genesis does not speak of either an apple or a snake. The "apple" is called forbidden fruit. Apple was added later on I believe when they started making cartoon animations of it. Also the serpent is not a snake. In this text, serpent means "shimmering one".
Actually, the idea that it is an apple is "borrowed" from Greek mythology, the story of Hera's golden apple (http://www.gurus.com/dougdeb/sermon/Western/paris.html), a story that also has "a choice" and moral implications. "You make trouble for yourself when you grab what you want without thinking."

*lots of web sites*

Ok, and let me give you a list of web sites as well

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

http://www.tektonics.org/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/topix.html

http://www.carm.org/
http://www.carm.org/objections.htm

And those are just some of my personal favouites

jolt

Genesis does not speak of either an apple or a snake. The "apple" is called forbidden fruit. Apple was added later on I believe when they started making cartoon animations of it. Also the serpent is not a snake. In this text, serpent means "shimmering one".

You might want to actually check your material, friend.

The 'fruit' in question basically means the 'young'... from the Hebrew 'Pariy'... it also refers to human offspring, children, progeny, and the 'fruit' of actions... as well as the fruit of, for example, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is not an apple, nor any other recognisable fruit.... although, symbolically (considering the serpent in the myth, and the purpose of the fruit in the story) it is most likely to be akin to a banana.

Regarding the Serpent.... the Hebrew 'Nachash' makes it very clear that we are, indeed, discussing a 'serpent' (serepnt, image of a serpent, or mythological fleeing serpent.... different possible emphasis on the meaning, but ALWAYS a serpent). Of course, the 'serpent MUST be a serpent, because otherwise the curse makes no sense; "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".

I can see NO reason to suspect the Hebrew 'Nachash' means ANYTHING other than serpent, so you will need to provide additional evidence, I feel, if you wish to try to convince people of an alternate translation.

Just give me PROOF.

Fine. The Gospels have been found quoted in various works of the time. Ignatius in his "seven letters" which was written in aproximately 100 AD quotes from all four of the gospels. Papias who was a disciple of John and lived between 70-130 AD wrote many pieces including a work called "an explination of the Lords discorses" which quotes John's gospel and others. Then there is Matthews Gospel. On Christmas eve 1994 the director of the institute for Epistomological research, Dr Carsten Peter Thiede released scientific evidence to the press that proved that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have was written not before AD 70. Then there is Mark's gospel which makes refernce to "A certian man from Cyrene, Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus". Now we know that Mark was the first man to compile a written piece on Jesus's life and he was not a disciple. Yet Matthew and Luke, who were contemparies of Jesus did did not mention him. For Mark to mention such an obscure name without any explination meant that he expected those who were reading this to be his immidate contemparies, thus he couldnt have written it more than 20 years after Jesus's death. Mark also fails to explain who Pilate was or give the name of the high priest (Matthew and Luke explain that Pilate was the Roman governer, and that the high priest was Caiphas) and again the most logical expliantion for this is that Mark's audiance did not need to be told who these people were. Since Pilate was removed from his post in AD 36 and Caiphas was no longer high priest in AD 37, if you go to far from those two dates, the lack of expliantion on Mark's part makes no sense. This is just a fraction of the proof out there. Writers like Gregory.A.Boyd, Wilber Smith etc have spent their lives researching this and find it valid.

You might want to actually check your material, friend.

The 'fruit' in question basically means the 'young'... from the Hebrew 'Pariy'... it also refers to human offspring, children, progeny, and the 'fruit' of actions... as well as the fruit of, for example, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is not an apple, nor any other recognisable fruit.... although, symbolically (considering the serpent in the myth, and the purpose of the fruit in the story) it is most likely to be akin to a banana.

Regarding the Serpent.... the Hebrew 'Nachash' makes it very clear that we are, indeed, discussing a 'serpent' (serepnt, image of a serpent, or mythological fleeing serpent.... different possible emphasis on the meaning, but ALWAYS a serpent). Of course, the 'serpent MUST be a serpent, because otherwise the curse makes no sense; "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".

I can see NO reason to suspect the Hebrew 'Nachash' means ANYTHING other than serpent, so you will need to provide additional evidence, I feel, if you wish to try to convince people of an alternate translation.

Well I said the fruit wasn't an apple.

I"m searching for where I saw the Shimmering one, or it might have been glimmering one.

You might want to actually check your material, friend.

The 'fruit' in question basically means the 'young'... from the Hebrew 'Pariy'... it also refers to human offspring, children, progeny, and the 'fruit' of actions... as well as the fruit of, for example, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is not an apple, nor any other recognisable fruit.... although, symbolically (considering the serpent in the myth, and the purpose of the fruit in the story) it is most likely to be akin to a banana.
Haha! "Sometimes a banana is just a banana." Fruit is the offspring of the tree?

Regarding the Serpent.... the Hebrew 'Nachash' makes it very clear that we are, indeed, discussing a 'serpent' (serepnt, image of a serpent, or mythological fleeing serpent.... different possible emphasis on the meaning, but ALWAYS a serpent). Of course, the 'serpent MUST be a serpent, because otherwise the curse makes no sense; "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".

I can see NO reason to suspect the Hebrew 'Nachash' means ANYTHING other than serpent, so you will need to provide additional evidence, I feel, if you wish to try to convince people of an alternate translation.
It's also likely that the Tree of Life had a serpent of its own. This is a quote, an interpretation of the myth, describing the tree and serpent in terms of the goddess religions of the Mediterranean area:
The Tree of Life was one of the primary images of the goddess (http://www.crystalinks.com/enkilab.jpg) herself, in whose immanent presence all pairs of opposites are reconciled. Growing on the surface of the earth, with roots below and branches above, the tree was the great pillar that united earth with heaven and the underworld, through which the energies of the cosmos poured continuously into earthly creation. The animating spirit that moved within it was the serpent (http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/seal.jpg), guardian also of the fruit or treasure of the tree, which was the epiphany of the goddess, that is, the experience of unity.

*snip*
On either side of this art [linked to serpent above] of this World Tree, the Axis Mundi, sit or stand, in numerous works of art, the female and male incarnations of this central mystery, the goddess herself in recognizable human form and her consort, who, like the serpent, dies her lover, and is reborn her son, in a ritual that enacts the continuing process underlying the visible cycles of life and death.

*snip*
...the seated female is the Bronze Age Sumerian Mother Goddess and the serpent who coils upright behind her is the image of her regenerative power. On the other side of the tree, in identical posture, sits her son-lover, called 'Son of the Abyss: Lord of the Tree of Life', whose role as fertilizing the source of life is given in the bull's horns upon his head. Since the serpent and the bull, on opposite sides of the seal, are both images of the living and dying manifestation of the goddess, a true mirror-image is created of the unification of opposites in a single vision. Further, both goddess and son-lover gesture with outstretched hand towards the hanging fruits of the Tree of Life, offering the gifts of immortality and enlightenment together - Inanna and Dumuzi, Ishtar and Tammuz, Isis and Osiris, Aphrodite and Adonis, Cybele and Attis - and all of them images of reconciliation and affirmation.

In Figure 2 [image of the Hebrew Adam and Eve] the female on the left, into whose eyes the serpent gazes, is not a goddess but a mortal woman, born from the body of the man facing her and now the daughter and bride not even of a father god but of a mortal man. Correspondingly, the man, Adam, no longer wears the horned crown of renewal, but gazes fearfully at his wife's liaison with the serpent, and holds his hand to his ear as though anticipating the dreadful word of Yahweh's curse. The hand of the woman, for she has not yet been named, touches the mouth of the serpent as though, prophetically, she were unable to draw herself away from her act of betraying into death the human race not yet born of her. All that remains of the goddess who was once indeed 'Mother of All Living' [what 'Eve' means] is the name she receives only when its sacred meaning has become profane. ...Similarly, the serpent has lost his immanent divinity as guardian of the tree and lord of rebirth, and has become himself the betrayer of both these roles, which are, in essence, one. The picture is dramatic: as the fig leaves reveal, it holds the moment of appalled awareness, when those who are part of nature are set for ever apart from nature in the perception that they are 'naked.' This is rendered in the picture as the same perception that they have broken the commandment of Yahweh, and that, as created beings, they are thereby for ever separated from their creator.

*snip*
The Tree of Life had also been linked with the serpent or dragon (winged serpent) over 1,000 years before Genesis was written. In 2025 BC, the cup of the Sumerian King Gudea of Lagash (see Chapter 5, Fig 22 (http://www.alchemylab.com/origin9.jpg)) showed two winged dragons holding back a pair of opening doors to reveal a caduceus of united snakes, the incarnation of the god Ningizzida, one of the names given to the consort of the mother goddess, to whom the cup is inscribed: 'Lord of the Tree of Life.'

A Greek myth of c. 700-500 BC told of a sacred tree called the golden apple tree of the Hesperides. It grew at the edge of the world in the land of the setting sun and its apples were given as a wedding gift to Hera, who then placed them under the protection of a great dragon (http://www.gettysburg.edu/~sflynn/teaching/aesthetics/paintings/ebj-hesperides.gif) (Fig 8 (http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~kdickson/Hesperides.jpg)). [ooh, pretty! (http://www.poster.net/leighton-frederick/leighton-frederick-the-garden-of-the-hesperides-4800148.jpg)]

*snip* Jason also has to encounter a great serpent guarding a sacred tree over which is hung the golden fleece, so here again the motif of the serpent, the tree and the treasure of the tree reappears. Two serpents intertwined as the caduceus re-emerge as the golden wand or rod of transformation of Hermes, the god who can cross the threashold between life and death, while the single serpent falls to Asclepius, god of healing.

*snip* ...the serpent was, variously, the guardian of the tree, the life-force of the rising and falling sap and, as the consort of the goddess, an image of the alternating living and dying aspects of the eternal principle embodied in the tree itself. According to which phase of life was enacted, the son-lovers were born from the tree (as Adonis), lived in the midst of it (as Tammuz) or were buried in it (as Osiris in his coffin of cedar enclosed in heather). The Sumerians of Eridu spoke of a wonderous tree with roots of white crystal that 'stretched towards the deep, its seat the central place of the earth, its foliage the couch of the primeval Mother. In its midst was Tammuz.' The ritual cutting down of the tree signified the dying phase of the totallity of being, seasonally celebrated as the 'fall', which, far from preventing rebirth, acknowledges its perennial possibility.

Turning back to Genesis with this in mind, the tree, or the two trees, and the serpent take on a different resonance. Since, on discovering not the water of life but their own nakedness, Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons, this tree also may have been a sycamore fig, with its large leaves, the same tree that was sacred to the goddess Asherah in Canaan, as it was in Egypt and Crete.

*snip*
In northern Babylonia the goddess of the Tree of Life was called the 'divine Lady of Eden' or Edin, and in the south she was called the 'Lady of the Vine' ...However, in the myth of Eden, where there is no unifying image of a goddess, there is significantly also not one tree but two trees, or, it could be said, the one tree has become two, and now the fruit of both of them is forbidden. In earlier mythologies the one tree offered both 'knowledge' and 'life', or 'wisdom' and 'immorality.' Here, knowledge of good and evil is split apart from eternal life, so that a perception of duality is rendered absolutely antithetical to a perception of life's unity.

*snip*
As we have seen, in images of the goddess in every culture [dealt with in the book] the serpent is never far away, standing behind her, eating from her hand, entwined in her tree, or even, as in Tiamat, the shape of the goddess herself. Genesis is no exception to this, unless it be that, formally, there is no goddess, only a woman of the same name. However, taking the story, not the image, the serpent, once lord of rebirth, has now turned into his opposite, the instigator of death in league with Eve. There are faint eachoes of the Epic of Gilgamesh in this reversal, since there the serpent steals the herb of immortality humanity might have had, and in Genesis, from this point of view, the serprent tricks the first parents of the race into death. 'For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sure die' (Gen 2:17). But, once the Goddess has become a woman, and the Serpent God has become a reptile, any meaningful union between them is impossible, and the images can no longer serve as a means of metaphorical exploration.

The serpent is first to receive Yahweh's curse, and, notably, in terms that suggest that up to that point he was upright, as he is drawn on the earlier seals: 'Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of ty life...' (Gen 3:14)... His former vertical posture, as it would seem it the light of later developments, has been appropriated.
References available on request. There's more, but I must sleep, and it's probably long enough.

Haha (http://www.transatlanticweb.com/covers/adam_eve.jpg)

Just wondering if people are intentionally ignoring post 1665 and the infomation therein contained

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: let the thread die! no conversions are made online! :headbang: :headbang:

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: let the thread die! no conversions are made online! :headbang: :headbang:

By posting to complain, your making the thread live longer

By posting to complain, your making the thread live longer

:eek: your right...um..aaaaaaaaaahh

Fine. The Gospels have been found quoted in various works of the time. Ignatius in his "seven letters" which was written in aproximately 100 AD quotes from all four of the gospels. Papias who was a disciple of John and lived between 70-130 AD wrote many pieces including a work called "an explination of the Lords discorses" which quotes John's gospel and others. Then there is Matthews Gospel. On Christmas eve 1994 the director of the institute for Epistomological research, Dr Carsten Peter Thiede released scientific evidence to the press that proved that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have was written not before AD 70. Then there is Mark's gospel which makes refernce to "A certian man from Cyrene, Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus". Now we know that Mark was the first man to compile a written piece on Jesus's life and he was not a disciple. Yet Matthew and Luke, who were contemparies of Jesus did did not mention him. For Mark to mention such an obscure name without any explination meant that he expected those who were reading this to be his immidate contemparies, thus he couldnt have written it more than 20 years after Jesus's death. Mark also fails to explain who Pilate was or give the name of the high priest (Matthew and Luke explain that Pilate was the Roman governer, and that the high priest was Caiphas) and again the most logical expliantion for this is that Mark's audiance did not need to be told who these people were. Since Pilate was removed from his post in AD 36 and Caiphas was no longer high priest in AD 37, if you go to far from those two dates, the lack of expliantion on Mark's part makes no sense. This is just a fraction of the proof out there. Writers like Gregory.A.Boyd, Wilber Smith etc have spent their lives researching this and find it valid.

Bullcrap.

Thats not proof of anything except the fact that Mark may have been a lousy author.

Bullcrap.

Thats not proof of anything except the fact that Mark may have been a lousy author.

I was hoping for an intellegent response. If you didnt notice, I pointed to the fact that Matthew and Luke do refer to who these people. For example, if I was to refer to Clement Attlee today, I may have to clarifify who he was, (proberbly not so much now given we have far more record keeping technologies) but I wouldnt have to clarifiy who Tony Blair is today, as everyone knows.

I was hoping for an intellegent response


you got one.

Just becuase you didnt like my answer, does not exclude the truth of it.

you got one.

Just becuase you didnt like my answer, does not exclude the truth of it.

No I didnt, you just refused to accept the truth of mine. Anyway, I pressed enter by mistake. Read the edit. Not to mention you've ignored the rest of the post.

No I didnt, you just refused to accept the truth of mine. Anyway, I pressed enter by mistake. Read the edit. Not to mention you've ignored the rest of the post.


Its not truth.

Its conjecture, that you choose to believe.
Its pieces of a 2000 year old text that may or may not have been written well, or with clear intentions.

Also, have you considered the fact that these men who wrote these thesis, may have been swayed by thier own faiths?

If you choose to interperet what Mark may or may not have written, when you say he wrote them, thats fine and dandy, but do not presume to insult the intelligence of those who cast doubt on that wich is doubtable.

If you choose to interperet what Mark may or may not have written, when you say he wrote them, thats fine and dandy, but do not presume to insult the intelligence of those who cast doubt on that wich is doubtable.

Well lets look at this

Do you know who Clemeant Atlee was?

Maybe, maybe not. You may well do considering in the 20th and 21st we have a great deal of records of him. Books, magazines, newspapers, websites etc. However, if you took all those away and reduced our record taking abilities to the written word which was only accessable to an occupying power of your country then you might find it very hard to know who this person was. Thus if I wanted to explain it to you, I would give refernce as to who he is "Clemant Atlee, the..." etc. Now the fact Mark doesnt give such refernce for Pilate and Caiphas immidately implies that those he expected to read his work must have been around at the time. Remember also why Mark wrote his work. To spread the word of Jesus to others. Now he is going to want to make his point extremely clearly and distinctly, so that people understand. If he was living more than say 13 years after Pilate and Caiphas then it would make no sense to exclude their positions from the record. Otherwise he would have a whorde of people who would not understand who these people were and what Jesus was doing with them. He therefore must have been giving out this book to reasonable contemparies. And also, let us not forget that Marks Gospel flourished and spread far and wide, so its quite obvious that people did understand it. And you still ignore my points about Ignatius and Papias.

you got one.
Opinion usually isn't considered to be an "intelligent response."

Just wondering if people are intentionally ignoring post 1665 and the infomation therein contained
Not at all. We're just waiting for such a time as Grave gets back online so that he can address it.

Well lets look at this

Do you know who Clemeant Atlee was?

Maybe, maybe not. You may well do considering in the 20th and 21st we have a great deal of records of him. Books, magazines, newspapers, websites etc. However, if you took all those away and reduced our record taking abilities to the written word which was only accessable to an occupying power of your country then you might find it very hard to know who this person was. Thus if I wanted to explain it to you, I would give refernce as to who he is "Clemant Atlee, the..." etc. Now the fact Mark doesnt give such refernce for Pilate and Caiphas immidately implies that those he expected to read his work must have been around at the time. Remember also why Mark wrote his work. To spread the word of Jesus to others. Now he is going to want to make his point extremely clearly and distinctly, so that people understand. If he was living more than say 13 years after Pilate and Caiphas then it would make no sense to exclude their positions from the record. Otherwise he would have a whorde of people who would not understand who these people were and what Jesus was doing with them. He therefore must have been giving out this book to reasonable contemparies. And also, let us not forget that Marks Gospel flourished and spread far and wide, so its quite obvious that people did understand it. And you still ignore my points about Ignatius and Papias.

My time is short, and your type doesnt listen well, so let me give you this to ponder, as I must sleep.


Your trying to imply that becuase Mark ommited some names of people in his book, that he must have been sure that everyone would know of whom he meant.

That would be great if Mark had not cared about potential readers in the future.
If, as you say, Mark intended to spread the word of Jesus, in his writings, would he not care about future readers of his book?
No one, even 100 years later, was likely to know about whom he was reffering to.

Its called a possibility.

Since there are few things in this life, that are impossible, you may want to start accepting that a few of them may exist, outside those that correlate to your personal faith.

Not at all. We're just waiting for such a time as Grave gets back online so that he can address it.

Thats the odd thing, I posted it while Grave was online before, and he ignored it.

Your trying to imply that becuase Mark ommited some names of people in his book, that he must have been sure that everyone would know of whom he meant.

That would be great if Mark had not cared about potential readers in the future.
If, as you say, Mark intended to spread the word of Jesus, in his writings, would he not care about future readers of his book?

His intention was simpley to spread Jesus's word around to those of his comtemparyies. The fact that he didnt mention those people implies that he was a contempory of Jesus, writing no more than 10-15 years after him otherwise he would have clarified who those people were. My point here is that by the lack of clarification, we can infer contempary writings.

jolt

Thats the odd thing, I posted it while Grave was online before, and he ignored it.
Well, perhaps he had moved on to another thread. Or perhaps he is doing some research. Or perhaps he was called away from the computer and left the browswer on (that happens to me a lot). Or perhaps... well, he'll be back.

I think he enjoys this kind of stuff too much to ignore it. ;)

I was hoping for an intellegent response. If you didnt notice, I pointed to the fact that Matthew and Luke do refer to who these people. For example, if I was to refer to Clement Attlee today, I may have to clarifify who he was, (proberbly not so much now given we have far more record keeping technologies) but I wouldnt have to clarifiy who Tony Blair is today, as everyone knows.

And if I were to refer to Abraham Lincoln today? What about Nixon? Grant? Washington? Madison? Dan Quayle? Aaron Burr? Paul Revere? Adlai Stevenson? Doesn't seem to support your point.

And if I were to refer to Abraham Lincoln today? What about Nixon? Grant? Washington? Madison? Dan Quayle? Aaron Burr? Paul Revere? Adlai Stevenson? Doesn't seem to support your point.

Yes, but in the 20th and 21st centuries we have loads of records and recording equipment to keep that data. That wasnt the case in the time I am talking about.

Yes, but in the 20th and 21st centuries we have loads of records and recording equipment to keep that data. That wasnt the case in the time I am talking about.

No they had word of mouth record keeping. The Native American can tell you how a river moved over the last five hundred years with none of it being written down. Some cultures had no written word whatsoever and still had tons of history. You're suggesting this culture had no history which is simply not true.

No they had word of mouth record keeping. The Native American can tell you how a river moved over the last five hundred years with none of it being written down. Some cultures had no written word whatsoever and still had tons of history. You're suggesting this culture had no history which is simply not true.

But there is no way of confirming its accuracy. If your suggesting that over 50 years from the time of Pilate they would be accurate you are streaching your point very thin. Native Americans may be able to tell how a river moved, but we cant say how accurate they are

No they had word of mouth record keeping. The Native American can tell you how a river moved over the last five hundred years with none of it being written down. Some cultures had no written word whatsoever and still had tons of history. You're suggesting this culture had no history which is simply not true.

I don't think he was suggesting they had no history. I think the point is, a lot of people want to discount what was written back then because we don't have any way of validating it. That's fine to make you skeptical, but its not fine to utterly discount it. The fact that we can't validate it does NOT mean its false.

I don't think he was suggesting they had no history. I think the point is, a lot of people want to discount what was written back then because we don't have any way of validating it. That's fine to make you skeptical, but its not fine to utterly discount it. The fact that we can't validate it does NOT mean its false.
This is true; but validating it, or at least confirming it by some historical evidence, allows us to better believe that it is true.

I have this problem with mythology, where much of the evidence is circumstancial, an interpretation of historical evidence, and while the interpretations could go other ways, we consciously try to make them validate each other, to create a cohesive picture. The human mind strives for order in the universe.

But there is no way of confirming its accuracy. If your suggesting that over 50 years from the time of Pilate they would be accurate you are streaching your point very thin. Native Americans may be able to tell how a river moved, but we cant say how accurate they are
Actually, they probably can, because the whole point of a verbal history strives for accuracy in the retelling. It's not like the story of a secret whispered in someone's ear that turns into something totally different by the time it gets back to the start. Today, we have much poorer memories than they did then, simply because we don't have a verbal history, we don't have to remember things as strictly. We are the product of "laziness" in a written history.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read


My skepticism is based on science. Although people may argue what brought all of the matter etc required for the big bang or what was there before that etc, I dont believe there is a benign, omnipotent being overseeing things

I don't think he was suggesting they had no history. I think the point is, a lot of people want to discount what was written back then because we don't have any way of validating it. That's fine to make you skeptical, but its not fine to utterly discount it. The fact that we can't validate it does NOT mean its false.

I'm not saying we can't validate it or that it's false. He's suggesting that the fact that Pilates' position is not explained suggested that he was a contemporary which suggests the people of that time had no history and is categorically untrue. I haven't discounted anything. He suggested it was proof and his 'proof' is based on an invalid assumption.

But there is no way of confirming its accuracy. If your suggesting that over 50 years from the time of Pilate they would be accurate you are streaching your point very thin. Native Americans may be able to tell how a river moved, but we cant say how accurate they are

Actually we can. It's a part of geological studies. Many studies have found the oral histories of aboriginals to be very accurate.

The fact that we can tell when Pilates left office today suggests they had a history that was passed down. You really have no idea how widespread knowledge was of him 100 years later but you base your 'proof' on this. I'm not making a point, I'm showing how you don't have one.

On what do you base your idea that there was no knowledge of the position held by Pilates or who he was 100 years after the death of Christ?

On what do you base your idea that there was no knowledge of the position held by Pilates or who he was 100 years after the death of Christ?

There wasnt "no" knowledge, but my point is that if you just said "Pilate" people would ask "Pilate who?". They wouldnt have no knowledge at all, but it would need a clarification, otherwise why would Matthew and Luke (who we know wrote after Mark) put one in. There wouldnt be no knowledge but there wouldnt be enough to warrant a complete lack of clarification. As for the point about how we know about it today, we know from records the romans kept and the Bible itslef. But those Roman records about Pilate wouldnt have been availble to the general Jewish populuas.

There wasnt "no" knowledge, but my point is that if you just said "Pilate" people would ask "Pilate who?". They wouldnt have no knowledge at all, but it would need a clarification, otherwise why would Matthew and Luke (who we know wrote after Mark) put one in. There wouldnt be no knowledge but there wouldnt be enough to warrant a complete lack of clarification. As for the point about how we know about it today, we know from records the romans kept and the Bible itslef. But those Roman records about Pilate wouldnt have been availble to the general Jewish populuas.

Again, you make tons of assumptions. They don't say Abraham Lincoln who? You suggest that these people had no sense of history. You don't know that the gospels weren't written for Christians who would most definitely have a sense of the position of Pontius Pilate. You assume they would not know, but you base it on NO knowledge or supporting evidence. Do you KNOW there was no oral history at that point? Do you KNOW that Pontius Pilate was not well-known a hundred years later? On what do you base this? In other words, other than assumptions what proof do you have?

Ordinarily I'd ignore this and let the Christian (in this case) side defend themselves; but, in this case, it is mythology that needs defending.

Yes, you are correct. Myth does not equate to "lie" in the context of a mythology, a collection of religious texts. Here, it does not indicate an untruth of any sort. What it does is point past the literal, metaphorically, to a truth behind it that is not the literal. The literal, then, becomes unimportant (not untrue) except as a symbol, and the truth behind it all that matters.

Yes, there is much in the texts that is myth. This is A GOOD THING :) for both the religious person, as it supports and upholds their understanding and belief of the non-literal meaning of the texts, and for the atheist, who can learn a thing or two about symbolism and non-materialism without having to surrender his beliefs.

Oh well.

I absolutely agree with you. Myths are NOT the same as "lies", or even "fiction". They are, in the religious sense, tools for thought. Any religion which hopes to maintain its relevance has to understand this.

Discarding the sophomoric "maybe it's all just an illusion" philosophy, which leads to last-Tuesdayism and which Dr Johnson and his boot refuted so well, we KNOW the universe is huge and ancient and, as far as it currently is beyond our understanding, is vastly more beyond the literal grasp of any of the ancient cultures. This is the product of centuries of science, and no shame to the ancients. But science does not refute the idea of "God". It merely refutes the idea that human beings are descended from two ancestors magicked into existence in around 4004BC, in a sandbox universe cobbled together by an old man in the sky.

Biblical literalism is an intellectual and philosophical dead end. What the literalists fail to grasp is that the mythological nature of their texts doesn't matter. It is perfectly fine, as far as I can see, to accept the truth that Jesus didn't walk on water, perform tricks with food and wine, or rise from the dead, and yet still acccept both the moral messages of his teaching and, indeed, to regard him as a (or even the) Saviour. Personally, I don't: I have no problems with the "golden rule" of Christianity -- if it were followed on a large scale we'd probably be living in a utopia -- but the spiritual message has never struck any sort of chord with me. However, a great many people find a strength and commitment in these and other myths which I suspect I don't have. Maybe I lack the right senses.

A true religion -- and I don't mean "literally true" -- MUST surpass the mundane and the all-too-human. To know that the stories on which the religion is based are not literal truths, and yet to believe in the message anyway, is to me the epitome of real faith. People who have to maintain their beliefs by bending their brains round all sorts of impossible corners twist their religion into crazy little backwaters where they end up campaigning against basic reality. There is only going to be one winner in that sort of contest. Worse, they obsess so much about the need to "prove" this fallacy or that one that they miss out on life. Their religions become nothing but a waiting-room for death, where following the rules -- or rather, their interpretation of "the rules" -- is all-important and nothing else matters.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I can't argue with that. :)

Again, you make tons of assumptions. They don't say Abraham Lincoln who? You suggest that these people had no sense of history.You don't know that the gospels weren't written for Christians who would most definitely have a sense of the position of Pontius Pilate. You assume they would not know, but you base it on NO knowledge or supporting evidence. Do you KNOW there was no oral history at that point? Do you KNOW that Pontius Pilate was not well-known a hundred years later? On what do you base this? In other words, other than assumptions what proof do you have?

Its not that they have no sense of history, its just that they would not have had the records to keep this kind of data alive. The Jewish public were not intersted enough about who there Roman governer was to keep the infomation alive. There aren't enough Jewish records of the Roman governers to suggest that there was much historical public knowledege of the previous Roman governers. And the fact that Luke and Matthew felt the need to clarifiy who he was implies that people much later didn't know.

A: Hey! Look as this. This guy gave me this copy of a translation of a translation of a translation of 2000 year old book with no trace of origional copies that tells us that if we lead out lives this way we will live for ever in paradise.
B: Awesome. Let me have a look... Cool. But hey, how do you know it's true.
A. Well the guy who gave it to me and wants me to financially support him and his orginization and lead my life according to his beliefs and raise my children to do the same and in doing so enlarge the influence of his orginization and the power they have over the population and threatened me with an eternity of pain if i didn't told me it was true so i guess it must be.
B: Sounds convincing. I'm sold.

A: Hey! Look as this. This guy gave me this copy of a translation of a translation of a translation of 2000 year old book with no trace of origional copies

We do have much of the original manuscripts. The RESV (Revised English Standard Version) of the Bible is based on translating the oldest records we have.


Well the guy who gave it to me and wants me to financially support him and his orginization

You don't have to give to the church, its not a requirement to be a Christian.


and threatened me with an eternity of pain if i didn't told me it was true so i guess it must be.


http://www.christian-thinktank.com/meorburn.html

I've basicly had it with explaining why hell is not a "threat" as so many non Chrsitians think it is, so I'll just let someone who knows the subject better than me do it.

Okay, you have most of the original manuscripts, could be some contention there, but how do you validate them as the true Word in your mind when there is such a bulk of material that remains outside the NT due to the virulent infighting and well organised libel campaign of proto-orthodoxy? What about the Gnostics, Manicheans, Docetists, and others? That's not even bringing in the fact that many are certifiable forgeries. It's like building a house on a soap bubble of truth.

Christianity was one out of dozens upon dozens of ancient religious movements. The Gnostics were essentially stomped out by the early Church. Don't get me wrong, I think Jesus was quite possibly the wisest man to walk the Earth, but could Christianity perhaps have survived fwhile all these other movements died for reasons besides the merits of its teachings? Perhaps because it was made a state religion by Constantine in the early third century A.D.?

Its not that they have no sense of history, its just that they would not have had the records to keep this kind of data alive.

Unproven assumption.

The Jewish public were not intersted enough about who there Roman governer was to keep the infomation alive.

Unproven assumption.

There aren't enough Jewish records of the Roman governers to suggest that there was much historical public knowledege of the previous Roman governers.

Unproven assumption.

And the fact that Luke and Matthew felt the need to clarifiy who he was implies that people much later didn't know.

Unproven assumption.

You're going to have to do better than that.

We do have much of the original manuscripts. The RESV (Revised English Standard Version) of the Bible is based on translating the oldest records we have.

Sooo... Original copies of Genesis? The Ten Commandments? How about various 'editing for clarity' that has occured? An explination of how Adam and Eve's three Sons had kids?
These are obvious examples but the fact is that there are almost no "Original" copies of anything in the bible - particulary Old Testament. And the older something is the more translations it will have been through.
Also even in the various English versions (Good News, King James) there are differenes in translation that cause certain aspects to have entirely different meanings. And these were both translated from the SAME language. If this can happen in a single step then imagine how the meanings can be changed through half a dozen translations.



You don't have to give to the church, its not a requirement to be a Christian.

No it isn't. But that does not mean that they don't want you to and that they won't encourage you to. In addition is not all about the money but also about the power.

A question for patronizing zealots:
Is your blind belief primiarly based on brainwashing and indoctrination as a child as opposed to actual logical falacies?

Personally I do believe there is a God (or Goddess or plurals of both) of some sort, but i disagree with organised religion as it is so often misused and abused by those seeking power and seeking to impose their will and way of life upon people who have differing beliefs. This applies to many world religions from the government in America seeking to ban abortions and limit access to contraceptives to Saudi Arabia where it is illegal to wear a cross. To list two small examples.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Look, they didnt keep the records on their Roman governors or else we would have found them, along with all the other Jewish records of that time. There was a lack of a certian technology at that time, the printing press. Meaning that the only records that could be kept were those of the written hand. Now as of yet we dont have any examples of Jewish records of their Roman occupiers governers. There arnt any lists of such things. How do you expect me to prove the lack of existance of something to you? All I can show you is nothing! We DO NOT HAVE THE RECORDS that the Jews made (if they made any) of the Roman governers of their country. What we do have are Jewish historians who later talk about Jesus's trial and execution, and they have to clarify who Pilate is then. And I didnt make an "assumption" about Luke and Matthew, I made a "implication". I "implied" that the fact that Matthew and Luke did have to clarifiy it would suggest that Mark's work was more contempary. And anyway, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they did have oral history traditions, sincer its near impossible to prove a negative.

Sooo... Original copies of Genesis? The Ten Commandments?


You will notice I said "much of" I didnt say all.


How about various 'editing for clarity' that has occured? An explination of how Adam and Eve's three Sons had kids?

Ok so I may not be able to explain how A&E's children had children themselves, but how do you explain how the first homosapien had children? If it was a child of another species then who did it mate with. If it mated with a diffrent spices then how did it produce another homosapien? Surely it would have been a hybrid?


No it isn't. But that does not mean that they don't want you to and that they won't encourage you to.

And thats a crime?


In addition is not all about the money but also about the power.

Can you elaborate?

In focusing on the presence or absence of God/Jaweh/Allah/Krishna/et cetera, we lose sight of that which is most important; how we, as people, can all function together acceptibly in our current society. Read any texts, tomes, or lexicons you please. Read them until you turn blind. They're still the printings of man, and nothing will change that. Perhaps inspired by some deity or another, they're still written by a person.
I choose atheism because I choose to believe my senses. However, that is so entirely unimportant and ineffectual to who I am and how I choose to conduct myself. Without the promise of eternal bliss in the afterlife, I think that my selection to be a good person for the sake of honor rather than that of brown-nosing that which is beyond my perceptual scope of understanding is a far purer path to walk.
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men
good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion
is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance.
Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no
one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The
defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. The
theologians, taking one with another, are adept logicians, but every
now and then they have to resort to sophistries so obvious that their
whole case takes on an air of the ridiculous. Even the most logical
religion starts out with patently false assumptions. It is often argued
in support of this or that one that men are so devoted to it that they
are willing to die for it. That, of course, is as silly as the Santa Claus
proof. Other men are just as devoted to manifestly false religions, and
just as willing to die for them. Every theologian spends a large part
of his time and energy trying to prove that religions for which
multitudes of honest men have fought and died are false, wicked, and
against God." - H.L. Mencken

Look, they didnt keep the records on their Roman governors or else we would have found them, along with all the other Jewish records of that time. There was a lack of a certian technology at that time, the printing press.

Some people are aware of the oral histories of the Jewish people, including the fact that the bible was keep orally for a very long time. Apparently, you aren't one of those people.

Meaning that the only records that could be kept were those of the written hand. Now as of yet we dont have any examples of Jewish records of their Roman occupiers governers. There arnt any lists of such things. How do you expect me to prove the lack of existance of something to you?

I expect you to either show that knowledge of these men was not widespread due to a lack of oral history or accept that you're basing your argument on a weak assumption. Jewish people had some of the best kept oral histories of the time. You're going to have show me that the new Christians didn't before I buy it.

All I can show you is nothing! We DO NOT HAVE THE RECORDS that the Jews made (if they made any) of the Roman governers of their country. What we do have are Jewish historians who later talk about Jesus's trial and execution, and they have to clarify who Pilate is then.

They do? Which historians? Or do you mean the texts of Luke and Matthew that may very well have been intended for a different audience than Mark's?

And I didnt make an "assumption" about Luke and Matthew, I made a "implication". I "implied" that the fact that Matthew and Luke did have to clarifiy it would suggest that Mark's work was more contempary. And anyway, the burden of proof is on you to prove that they did have oral history traditions, sincer its near impossible to prove a negative.

They wrote it more clearly. That doesn't suggest that they 'felt the need to clarify'. They may have thought it sounded better. They may have always referred to him that way, much like some people just say John Ashcroft and some people say Attorney General John Ashcroft. You made an assumption as to why they included the rank of these individuals and it's unproven.

You will notice I said "much of" I didnt say all.
I think "much of" is a bit generous. "Fragments of" might be better. The points i listed though are not exactly minor aspects of the religion - they're pretty core to the whole thing and the origionals are distinctly not there.



Ok so I may not be able to explain how A&E's children had children themselves, but how do you explain how the first homosapien had children? If it was a child of another species then who did it mate with. If it mated with a diffrent spices then how did it produce another homosapien? Surely it would have been a hybrid?

I'm sure there must be an Evolution thread about here somewhere... Seeing as you seem to think Evolution occurs by breeding different species then it might take a while to explain the base concepts. I'm inclined to believe the evolution version (which with lower lifeforms can be demonstrated in the lab in a relativly small amount of time) rather than a version found from documents from 4000 odd BC which no longer exist.


And thats a crime?

No, I'm just saying religions do not often have the welfare of the people as their sole aim.


Can you elaborate?
Religions hold a large amount of power that they can (and do) use to shape the world for their own aims. In the past the power was a lot more direct and extended much further into peoples lives however today it more often shows in political influence. Such as recently a law on Abortion failed in Italy because the Vatican (a different country) instructed the people not to vote in the referendum this voiding it - a very obvious example of the chruch intefering with the laws of a country. For more direct xamples of religions flexing their muscles look to Fundamentalist Islamic countris and the impact the power used by the religion has on people lives in say Iran. Its a different religion but the use and abuse of power is something many religions share.

A question for patronizing zealots:
Is your blind belief primiarly based on brainwashing and indoctrination as a child as opposed to actual logical falacies?
This is called flamebait and is discouraged in the General discussion forum. You may like to read the rules in the stickies at the top of the board.

This is called flamebait and is discouraged in the General discussion forum. You may like to read the rules in the stickies at the top of the board.

Apologies if it is against the rules and it was not intended as flamebait, I felt that it was a reasonable skew on the original post on the front page as the original seemed very patronising and one sided from the opposite side.

I'll tone it down in future.

Apologies if it is against the rules and it was not intended as flamebait, I felt that it was a reasonable skew on the original post on the front page as the original seemed very patronising and one sided from the opposite side.

I'll tone it down in future.
Hehe.

Evidently, from replies on this forum, there are a great number of people who believe in one or more of: magic, supernatural forces, fate and a literal creation. Such questions as started this topic pop up frequently, and I suspect the poster was sincere.

I'm sure there must be an Evolution thread about here somewhere... Seeing as you seem to think Evolution occurs by breeding different species then it might take a while to explain the base concepts. I'm inclined to believe the evolution version (which with lower lifeforms can be demonstrated in the lab in a relativly small amount of time) rather than a version found from documents from 4000 odd BC which no longer exist.


Evolution basicly argues that a member of one species can have a offspring of another. Now if thats the case then when the first one of a new spieces is born what does it mate with to continue the species?

Evolution basicly argues that a member of one species can have a offspring of another. Now if thats the case then when the first one of a new spieces is born what does it mate with to continue the species?
Nah, evolution doesn't work like that. The changes from generation to generation are gradual, so that the point when a 'new species' occurs would have to be quite a few generations apart from the point of an 'old species', with the generations between being links.

But this is off-topic.

That is not quite what it says or how it works.

The explinaton is quite long and if your entire understanding is "Something gives birth to a different species and the new species must mate with another of the new species to continue the new species" then i doubt you would be able to grasp it.

In very basic terms:
The offspring inherit genes from their parents
Sometimes there are mutations where a gene can be very slghtly different. (This is not tooo uncommon - the green eye gene is a mutated blue eye gene for example, where the brown eye gene is completely different)
This slightly different gene gives the offspring an advantage in life.
The offspring passes the gene to its offspring.
As the gene gives an advantage the new offspring they are more likely to survine and pass the gene to future genrations.
Due to this the new gene will feature in larger and larger portions of the population over a large number of generations.
If this happens in a population that is geographically seperated from the origional species and hence cannot breed with them then slowly a new species will develop that will be distinct from the origional.
If it happens in a population where there are no geographical boundaries then the entire species will gradually change.

But we digress from the actual topic of the thread which is the never ending arguement of whose religion is correct. And as all parties believe theirs is correct then it could last a while.

Apologies if it is against the rules and it was not intended as flamebait, I felt that it was a reasonable skew on the original post on the front page as the original seemed very patronising and one sided from the opposite side.

I'll tone it down in future.

The point that the origninal poster was making was that many people simpley see the historical evidence in favour of the ressurection for example as invalid because a resurection is impossible according to the laws of natural scinece. Thus they do not give the same kind of unbiased and fair analysis that they give other historical events.

I expect you to either show that knowledge of these men was not widespread due to a lack of oral history or accept that you're basing your argument on a weak assumption. Jewish people had some of the best kept oral histories of the time. You're going to have show me that the new Christians didn't before I buy it.

Since your asking me to prove a negative (which is near impossible) I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Jews did keep an oral history of their Roman govenrners.

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.

Kids? Yes, I have two of my own and I'm married and I think religion is bullshit and so does my husband.

Sorry to break it to you, more adults are atheists than "kids"

Since your asking me to prove a negative (which is near impossible) I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Jews did keep an oral history of their Roman govenrners.

No problem. Mark and Luke were written after Mark (according to you) and they still had knowledge of the position of Pontius Pilate. This suggests the Jews were aware of that position.

Not to mention the widespread knowledge that the old testament was an oral history before it was written down. The oral history of the Jews is fairly famous.

More importantly, you are suggesting you've offered PROOF that Mark was written earlier than many believe and it's based on an assumption. You've offered nothing you can back up. Now you suggest that if I can't prove your ASSUMPTIONS aren't just you and people like you making crap up, then somehow it stands as proof. Ridiculous.

Things seem to have gone way off track.. but that is one of the problems that religion has - there are so many objections from so many different fields of science and philosophy that it's amazing anyone can keep their 'faith'.

The modern church gets around all these objections by saying that 'god works in mysterious ways' and reasoning that if we had any kind of evidence for Gods existance then we wouldn't need faith to believe in him (this is, of course, contrary to the historical church where all manner of weather phenomina, diseases, etc were explained by way of God and divine assistance). Which is also why modern christianity is retreating to evangelism and the absolute belief in the [very much human written] bible of 'Gods Word'.

Never mind that evangelism forces one into a belief of a deceptive god (Geologic/Archaeological/Fossil records, Background Radiation, and all that other good stuff that God must have put in place to test our faith if we want to believe the universe is not billions of years old).

It seems to me that there are only two options for a modern christian:
1. Accept that God is deceptive and that the universe is as it is merely to taste our faith versus our capacity to reason
2. Take an almost agnostic view that basically discounts the bible entirely and reason that God exists, but nothing ever written or postulated by the church can be taken literaly.

My Great uncle Roy says:

There is no CHRISTIAN GOD

there is only GOD

THE FIRE GOD

He sitteth upon the circle of the Earth
and the inhabitants are as grasshoppers

He doeth whatsoever He will
and who shall let him?

He is all good
and there is not the shadow of turning within Him

The Earth is THE LORD'S
and the fulness thereof

Blessed be The Name of THE LORD
AMEN

Christians are the firstfruits

and you have to be called--and then seek

and then be chosen

it's not for everyone

but come all who will

but be ready for everything to get worse--and be prepared to learn how to die
(to the world)

he who hath an ear
let him hear

otherwise
forget I mentioned it

in fact--tell no-one I even told you this

God is not willing that any man should perish

His Kingdom come
His will be done
In Earth as it is in heaven

but that hasn't happened yet

in case you've noticed

He is high and lifted up
and His train fills the temple

the temple of GOD
is built without hands

if you are born of woman
you are he who peeped thru the unhewn dolmen arch

claim yer birthright

and be a brother
to THE SON OF MAN

(if you got the sand)

otherwise

don't argue with a Christian
such an one has important things to do
have some respect for the dead

don't be searchin' for a reason
to enjoy yerself
seems it's better done than argued
with somebody else

and NOBODY has more fun than US

correct a wise man
and he will bless you
rebuke a fool
and receive a BLOT

cast not yer pearls before swine
nor give yer precious things to the dogs

:cool: :D

Personally, I believe most christians who try to argue their side of biblical truth, only make themselves look more desperate to find some tiny grain of truth, that they are willing and able to convince themselves that some thread of highly cirumstantial and coincidental evidence, ultimately proves that God exists, and is right here..right now.

Then, when someone points out that such circumstantial evidence, is ultimately unusable in any kind of discussion, they resort to insulting the intelligence of the one who dared question their faiths.

Is it becuase they know, deep down that there may be nothing in the sky to pray to but clouds, and are desperate to stick thier fingers in thier spiritual ears, while yelling "la la la..I cant hear you!", in tounges?

I dont know.

What I do know, is that a dubious book, written thousands of years ago, of unknown origins, and unknown dates, isnt proof of anything, at all, except that the book exists.

No problem. Mark and Luke were written after Mark (according to you) and they still had knowledge of the position of Pontius Pilate. This suggests the Jews were aware of that position.

I've already explianed this. They had to clarify who pilate was. They may have known his name and postion, but they have had to clarify it to those who wouldnt have known. Basicly if they had said the name alone, then its likely that people would'nt have understood who it was. If however they said the name AND the position he held then it would have made more sense. And the fact that you seem to admit that they did know lends creedence to my point which is that Matthew and Luke were written contemparyly to Jesus


Not to mention the widespread knowledge that the old testament was an oral history before it was written down. The oral history of the Jews is fairly famous.

Tell you what, I'll aplly your own standards to you. Prove it.


More importantly, you are suggesting you've offered PROOF that Mark was written earlier than many believe and it's based on an assumption. You've offered nothing you can back up. Now you suggest that if I can't prove your ASSUMPTIONS aren't just you and people like you making crap up, then somehow it stands as proof. Ridiculous.

Its not just Pilate I am talking about. Mark also makes refences to "A certian man from Cyrene, Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus" who was forced to help Jesus carry the cross without explaining further who he was. Matthew and Luke make no refernce to him, thus implying that Mark had far more infomation than did Matthew or Luke. And given that he didnt explain the signifcence of the three of them it is assumed that the first readers of the Gospel Mark wrote knew who they were. And you still havent adressed the other points I raised. The Gospels have been found quoted in various works of the time. Ignatius in his "seven letters" which was written in aproximately 100 AD quotes from all four of the gospels. Papias who was a disciple of John and lived between 70-130 AD wrote many pieces including a work called "an explination of the Lords discorses" which quotes John's gospel and others. Then there is Matthews Gospel. On Christmas eve 1994 the director of the institute for Epistomological research, Dr Carsten Peter Thiede released scientific evidence to the press that proved that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have was written not before AD 70.

I've already explianed this. They had to clarify who pilate was. They may have known his name and postion, but they have had to clarify it to those who wouldnt have known. Basicly if they had said the name alone, then its likely that people would'nt have understood who it was. If however they said the name AND the position he held then it would have made more sense. And the fact that you seem to admit that they did know lends creedence to my point which is that Matthew and Luke were written contemparyly to Jesus

Again, you assume that people would not know unless they were contemporary, but you have not shown this to be true. You offered nothing to support this extrapolation of the evidence.

Tell you what, I'll aplly your own standards to you. Prove it.

Or I can just dismiss your 'proof' like everyone else here. You notice I'm the only one explaining to you why nobody takes your proof seriously. You haven't given me a reason to go searching the web. A lack of proof isn't particularly inspiring to me.

Its not just Pilate I am talking about. Mark also makes refences to "A certian man from Cyrene, Simon the father of Alexander and Rufus" who was forced to help Jesus carry the cross without explaining further who he was. Matthew and Luke make no refernce to him, thus implying that Mark had far more infomation than did Matthew or Luke. And given that he didnt explain the signifcence of the three of them it is assumed that the first readers of the Gospel Mark wrote knew who they were. And you still havent adressed the other points I raised. The Gospels have been found quoted in various works of the time. Ignatius in his "seven letters" which was written in aproximately 100 AD quotes from all four of the gospels. Papias who was a disciple of John and lived between 70-130 AD wrote many pieces including a work called "an explination of the Lords discorses" which quotes John's gospel and others. Then there is Matthews Gospel. On Christmas eve 1994 the director of the institute for Epistomological research, Dr Carsten Peter Thiede released scientific evidence to the press that proved that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have was written not before AD 70.
I'm just going to ignore your unsupported claim that Mark's lack of reference to the positions of these people suggests anything about when they were written.

Ignatius? You sure you want to use that one as your 'proof'. The letters that were found in a collection with fake letters to Mary? The letters they still can't decide which version is accurate? Some argue the veracity of the letters altogether.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/controversy.html

I'm actually not that familiar with Papias and there is basically nothing reliable available on the internet (more than half of the sites quote the same source without crediting it). I know that every source says that "An Explanation of the Lord's Discourses" was written later than you claimed. It also isn't claimed to quote anything other than John. It 'may' reference the origins of some others, which is not the same as quoting.

How does saying it Matthew couldn't have been written before 70 AD help your argument? That statement supports the idea that it could have been written in the fourth century.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

are you trying to convert people?...hmm?..i think you are...let the flaming begin! there have been hundreds of threads whare nutjobs like your self have tried to convert the sensible...must there be another?

How does saying it Matthew couldn't have been written before 70 AD help your argument? That statement supports the idea that it could have been written in the fourth century.

Thats ment to say after, my mistake. Thinking in terms of BC, backwards.

Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals (mainly finches). He GUESSED that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this.
There has been quite a lot of evidence to show that ADAPTION takes place, eg, all the different types of dogs: Huskies have warm coats to deal with cold temperatures, and others in hot climates have very thin coats.
Although evolution sounds like a nice story and a well written one by Mr Darwin, no 'links' have been found. People have discovered animals with differences and assume that the tow findings must be linked, this happens a lot but NEVER has one of the 'links' been found. To put it bluntly at the moment the 'links' don't exist. And I think never will.

There wasnt "no" knowledge, but my point is that if you just said "Pilate" people would ask "Pilate who?". They wouldnt have no knowledge at all, but it would need a clarification, otherwise why would Matthew and Luke (who we know wrote after Mark) put one in. There wouldnt be no knowledge but there wouldnt be enough to warrant a complete lack of clarification. As for the point about how we know about it today, we know from records the romans kept and the Bible itslef. But those Roman records about Pilate wouldnt have been availble to the general Jewish populuas.

Mark was written to the populace of the Jerusalem/Palestine area where they knew and understood who these people were.

Matthew and Luke were for an audience that had no intrinsic knowledge of Palestine/Jerusalem.

Personally, my heroes have always been free-thinkers.

Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals (mainly finches). He GUESSED that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this.
There has been quite a lot of evidence to show that ADAPTION takes place, eg, all the different types of dogs: Huskies have warm coats to deal with cold temperatures, and others in hot climates have very thin coats.
Although evolution sounds like a nice story and a well written one by Mr Darwin, no 'links' have been found. People have discovered animals with differences and assume that the tow findings must be linked, this happens a lot but NEVER has one of the 'links' been found. To put it bluntly at the moment the 'links' don't exist. And I think never will.

Evolution has been observed in populations of fruitflies and various types of animals that have short lifespans. I don't know what 'links' it is you're looking for, but your post is almost wholly incorrect.

You might want to actually check your material, friend.

The 'fruit' in question basically means the 'young'... from the Hebrew 'Pariy'... it also refers to human offspring, children, progeny, and the 'fruit' of actions... as well as the fruit of, for example, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is not an apple, nor any other recognisable fruit.... although, symbolically (considering the serpent in the myth, and the purpose of the fruit in the story) it is most likely to be akin to a banana.

Like I said, it wasn't an apple.


Regarding the Serpent.... the Hebrew 'Nachash' makes it very clear that we are, indeed, discussing a 'serpent' (serepnt, image of a serpent, or mythological fleeing serpent.... different possible emphasis on the meaning, but ALWAYS a serpent). Of course, the 'serpent MUST be a serpent, because otherwise the curse makes no sense; "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".

I can see NO reason to suspect the Hebrew 'Nachash' means ANYTHING other than serpent, so you will need to provide additional evidence, I feel, if you wish to try to convince people of an alternate translation.

http://www.childrenofyahweh.com/Other%20Reading/the_serpent.htm

Satan is often referred to as an Angel of Light or Shinging One.

http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/SNAKE.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/gen3.html

Haha! "Sometimes a banana is just a banana." Fruit is the offspring of the tree?


It's also likely that the Tree of Life had a serpent of its own. This is a quote, an interpretation of the myth, describing the tree and serpent in terms of the goddess religions of the Mediterranean area:

References available on request. There's more, but I must sleep, and it's probably long enough.

Haha (http://www.transatlanticweb.com/covers/adam_eve.jpg)

I've seen the serpent linked with the tree before... which is kind of why I see no justification for any OTHER personification of the serpent in this story - especially since the text is quite certain about the identity of THIS serpent as A serpent. I don't doubt that the first incarnations of the Hebrew Genesis myth had the serpent as possessing 'godhead' - but the text (as is) contains nothing more metaphysical than great knowledge, and the ability to talk and reason... and certainly no justification for the serpent as 'form' of the 'devil'.

To put it bluntly at the moment the 'links' don't exist. And I think never will. I think there's a logical reason for this (probably been pointed out before but this is a *massive* thread). The 'links' represent just that - transitional links between two ultimately successful species. For the links NOT to exist helps promote evolution as a theory. If the 'goal' of evolution is for animal X (for instance, a highly adapted amphibian suited to marine life) to evolve into animal Y (a small mammal ideally suited to terrestrial life), then it makes sense that the 'links' - progressively successful in their new environment to varying degrees - would not necessarily form lasting species evident in, say, fossil records.

Depending on the rate of evolution for a particular species, we could be looking at a transitional creature that lasted for an 'eyeblink' of history, and with all the tumult that occurs on the face of the earth it might be very difficult or ultimately impossible ever to find evidence of them.

Nevertheless, as the rate of our scientific knowledge increases, I believe most of the answers will come in time.

Summarized briefly, Charles Darwin studied wildlife while on a voyage and he noticed the variation in the appearance of the individual animals (mainly finches). He GUESSED that this variation, given enough time, would allow these animals to change to the point that they looked different. This was not a surprising discovery. Anyone can examine different varieties of roses or cats to see this.
I think DEDUCED is the word you're looking for. There was no guesswork involved, just a reasonable conclusion drawn from existing data.

There has been quite a lot of evidence to show that ADAPTION takes place, eg, all the different types of dogs: Huskies have warm coats to deal with cold temperatures, and others in hot climates have very thin coats.
Although evolution sounds like a nice story and a well written one by Mr Darwin, no 'links' have been found. People have discovered animals with differences and assume that the tow findings must be linked, this happens a lot but NEVER has one of the 'links' been found. To put it bluntly at the moment the 'links' don't exist. And I think never will.
Actually, evolution was first proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and Darwin's work was a joint effort with Alfred Russel Wallace. Furthermore evolution is a theory that "combined Darwinian natural selection with the re-discovered theory of heredity proposed by Gregor Mendel..." and modern advancements in genetic research. So, as you can see, it is not "a story written by Mr. Darwin."

I've seen the serpent linked with the tree before... which is kind of why I see no justification for any OTHER personification of the serpent in this story - especially since the text is quite certain about the identity of THIS serpent as A serpent. I don't doubt that the first incarnations of the Hebrew Genesis myth had the serpent as possessing 'godhead' - but the text (as is) contains nothing more metaphysical than great knowledge, and the ability to talk and reason... and certainly no justification for the serpent as 'form' of the 'devil'.
Well, I'm sure someone somewhere has a justification for it. But the symbolism of the serpent is more signficant than a "devil" character, as I'd hoped to demonstrate. So we are in agreeance.

http://www.stargods.org/WhereDidEvilComeFrom.htm

Here's another one that describes Satan as something other than an actual snake.

That Satan is not a snake is not in dispute. :)

It's that the snake is Satan that is disputed.

Ok, what I meant was it also referrs that the serpent is not a snake.

FOUR RELIGIOUS TRUTHS

1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.

2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian World.

4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.

:D

Like I said, it wasn't an apple.




http://www.childrenofyahweh.com/Other%20Reading/the_serpent.htm

Satan is often referred to as an Angel of Light or Shinging One.

http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/SNAKE.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/gen3.html

The problem with your "Children of Yahweh" site, is that it reads the Old Testament in terms of the New... and, while there is nothing wrong with doing that for FAITH reasons... the Old Testament was written a long time before the New, and was NOT written to conform to New Testament imagery.

It is a logical error, to try to work out what was intended by Hebrew scholars, by looking at text written a millenium later, in a different language.

As for the root word - Nachash means serpent, and to read anything more into it is dangerous... do you assume that all cupboards hold cups? According to the origins of the word, that is their purpose... similarly, the root of the word Nachash MIGHT influence it's later meaning... but to automatically ASSUME it DOES it flawed.


Your second source is also flawed, to the extent that, at one point, the author tries to justify a 'satanic' interpretation of the serpent, by using a modern English dictionary definition of the word 'serpent'? The entirety of the Israelect argument hinges on the fact that it is too unlikely to be believed, that Eve would talk to a serpent. Considering the CONTEXT of the story, I find this an insupportable argument... after all, Eve spent all her time in a garden that supplied her every need, in which 'god' used to take casual strolls... how can a talking serpent be 'unlikely' in that context? And again, the attempt is made to read an EARLIER scripture THROUGH a latter... this time, through the history of Dan... since Dan is METAPHORICALLY referred to as a serpent, so must the first usage of the word 'serpent' be metaphor?

That doesn't make any sense - not EVERY use of a word can be metaphor, because a metaphor needs something tangible to refer TO.

These first two sources also seem to ignore the fact that the word Nachash probably came to the Hebrews as an artifact... since the language has it's roots in Ugaritic, it is VERY likely that the concepts implied by some of the root words are irrelevent - and possibly even unknown, AT THAT POINT.

We have already seen that the same 'characters' already existed in other Mesopotamian myth, much earlier - most likely we see nothing more than the translation of an old story, bringing with it remenants of the old language in the form of names, etc.

Your third source, again commits the crime of attempting to explain the OLDER text, through reference to the new. It attempts to justify the misuse of older mythic elements, through trying to reinterpret original meanings THROUGH the use of NEW meaning. Not only does the New Testament reinterpret the Serpent, but also Satan. The character assigned in the book of Revelations bears pretty much NO resemblence to the servant of god we see in the book of Job... and the 'liar' we see in the New Testament has nothing in common with the serpent (who tells Eve only truths) of the garden.


All three sources are flawed in another aspect, also... for all their fancy talking, and their reading the ONE text THROUGH another... none manages to explain HOW the curse applies... since god allegedly removes the legs of the serpent, and makes it eat the dust - leaving us with a very CLEAR image of the modern serpent... a reptile with no limbs, crawling in the dirt.

And THAT imagery fails to connect with either the OLD or NEW (testament) versions of Satan.

Well, I'm sure someone somewhere has a justification for it. But the symbolism of the serpent is more signficant than a "devil" character, as I'd hoped to demonstrate. So we are in agreeance.

I mean there is no SCRIPTURAL justification for the serpent being 'the devil'... not until the later attempt to review older texts THROUGH newer texts.

Yes, we agree... the roots of the serpent story are deeper, and far more significant, than some mere 'devil' character.

What we are seeing, in the serpent story, is, in fact, the polytheistic root of the Hebrew myth, BEFORE the addition of the attempt at monotheism... we are seeing the ORIGINAL creation story, and all the necesasry characters, who are REINTERPRETED through the 'one true god' version, with the addition of this 'wandering god', who keeps just passing through.

All three sources are flawed in another aspect, also... for all their fancy talking, and their reading the ONE text THROUGH another... none manages to explain HOW the curse applies... since god allegedly removes the legs of the serpent, and makes it eat the dust - leaving us with a very CLEAR image of the modern serpent... a reptile with no limbs, crawling in the dirt.

The first link has this to say:

It is the same with the other Figures used in v.14, “On thy belly shalt thou go”. This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words “heel” and “head” do in v.15. It points for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan’s ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said “our belly cleaveth unto the ground” (Ps.44.25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, “Dust shalt thou eat”. This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is “sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel” (Prov.20.17). This does not literal “gravel”, but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal “gravel”. So when Christians are rebuked for “biting and devouring one another” (Gal. 3.14,15), something more heart breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.


There was also mention that the curse of eating dust in Hebrew meant the lowest of the low.

Anyway, these links weren't put up as a debate over the truth of A&E's story, they're a response to you asking for evidence that Serpent means something other than snake.

Interesting thread. Copious of incorrect statements.

In short, I dont wish to pan people with religious views...but much of the formation of the universe can be explained with Science. There are other questions you may pose that the answers have not yet been found for, but that doesnt mean God was responsible

Interesting thread. Copious of incorrect statements.

In short, I dont wish to pan people with religious views...but much of the formation of the universe can be explained with Science. There are other questions you may pose that the answers have not yet been found for, but that doesnt mean God was responsible

this is true, however the explanation by science of the formation of the universe does not cancel God out either.

Some people are aware of the oral histories of the Jewish people, including the fact that the bible was keep orally for a very long time. Apparently, you aren't one of those people.


It is fairly obvious that the Hebrews kept a strong oral tradition:

1) The Hebrew history allegedly stretches back several thousand years.
2) The earliest manuscripts appeared AFTER the soujourn in Babylon.

Comparing those two factors, it is pretty clear that there must have been records kept that were NOT written records... and, since the Hebrews were largely a nomadic people, this pretty much HAS TO HAVE BEEN an oral tradition.

Further evidence is, of course, available in scripture... since the entire book of Psalms is typical of the song-story form of record keeping which is still evidenced among nomadic peoples today.

this is true, however the explanation by science of the formation of the universe does not cancel God out either.


Ive had a similar discussion with my 2 housemates who do believe in God. I dont have any problem with anyone believing that God was the reason the 'ingredients' came together for the Big Bang etc etc.

But as Stephen Hawking asked in "A Brief History Of Time", what was he doing before all that?

If someone has religious beliefs, good luck to them. I wouldn't dream of trying to tell them they're wrong. But for me, as a physicist, I tend to go more for something that can at least prove a lot of its theories rather than having a blind faith in some 'omnipotent' being

The first link has this to say:

There was also mention that the curse of eating dust in Hebrew meant the lowest of the low.

Anyway, these links weren't put up as a debate over the truth of A&E's story, they're a response to you asking for evidence that Serpent means something other than snake.

I somewhat mis-spoke, I suspect... none of the links offers SATISFACTORY explanation of the 'curse'.

If you are accepting Genesis as literal, then the 'serpent' (in whatever guise) is literal, and the Curse that god bestows upon the serpent must ALSO be literal.

Thus, if you accept that god made the world in six days, or whatever... that there were only two humans made (by hand) at the beginning - and we ALL descend from those two, that there really WAS a flood that killed everything that wasn't inside a boat... if you believe ALL of that to be literal, there is NO justification for trying to make the Curse metaphor.

The Genesis story CLEARLY says it was a serpent, and that serpents have no legs, and 'eat the dust', because the FIRST serpent was cursed to be that way.

Ive had a similar discussion with my 2 housemates who do believe in God. I dont have any problem with anyone believing that God was the reason the 'ingredients' came together for the Big Bang etc etc.

But as Stephen Hawking asked in "A Brief History Of Time", what was he doing before all that?

If someone has religious beliefs, good luck to them. I wouldn't dream of trying to tell them they're wrong. But for me, as a physicist, I tend to go more for something that can at least prove a lot of its theories rather than having a blind faith in some 'omnipotent' being

Wouldn't you consider Hawking's belief in a black hole blind faith? I appreciate your stance and I appreciate your demeanor when speaking of the faith of others. I take acception to calling faith blind, as I see that as an assumption on your part. But I appreciate you making that assumption politely. :D

I somewhat mis-spoke, I suspect... none of the links offers SATISFACTORY explanation of the 'curse'.

If you are accepting Genesis as literal, then the 'serpent' (in whatever guise) is literal, and the Curse that god bestows upon the serpent must ALSO be literal.

Thus, if you accept that god made the world in six days, or whatever... that there were only two humans made (by hand) at the beginning - and we ALL descend from those two, that there really WAS a flood that killed everything that wasn't inside a boat... if you believe ALL of that to be literal, there is NO justification for trying to make the Curse metaphor.

The Genesis story CLEARLY says it was a serpent, and that serpents have no legs, and 'eat the dust', because the FIRST serpent was cursed to be that way.

Well this could be one source of our misunderstanding. I don't take every word in the bible as literal. I contend that much of it is metaphorical. I believe there was a flood, I don't necessarily believe it covered the entire earth. I believe God created the universe, I don't necessarily believe it happened in 6 Earth days. I believe Satan tempted Eve, and I don't believe he looked like a snake. The Hebrew definition of serpent as Shining one fits my belief.

this is true, however the explanation by science of the formation of the universe does not cancel God out either.

And yet, why confuse matters, by adding in an EXTRA factor, that CANNOT be measured or verified?

And yet, why confuse matters, by adding in an EXTRA factor, that CANNOT be measured or verified?

Do you mean God cannot be measured or verified?

It is fairly obvious that the Hebrews kept a strong oral tradition:

1) The Hebrew history allegedly stretches back several thousand years.
2) The earliest manuscripts appeared AFTER the soujourn in Babylon.

Comparing those two factors, it is pretty clear that there must have been records kept that were NOT written records... and, since the Hebrews were largely a nomadic people, this pretty much HAS TO HAVE BEEN an oral tradition.

Further evidence is, of course, available in scripture... since the entire book of Psalms is typical of the song-story form of record keeping which is still evidenced among nomadic peoples today.

Exactly. The idea that because technology for mass media was not available to the Hebrews they simply couldn't have knowledge of the positions of these figures in their history is ridiculous at its core.