NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know what to believe. I know there is something more to life, a lot of Hindu beliefs click with me. I'll be honest, I don't know all the details of Christianity. We had a debate in Anthropology Creation vs. Evolution and I took neither side. I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers or live my life the way a book tells me to. The people for evolution presented many strong arguments and all the Creationists would do was quote passages from the bible or say "he's god, he can do anything"... I wasn't impressed... BUT what else could they say, really? I didn't read through all 133 posts of this thread but I'd like to hear a Creationists arguement as to why they believe in God. There's no logical argument for it, just like most great things in life.

I'm a Christian, but not one that many Christians can relate to. I do believe that God did create the universe, but he did so in a way that creation could easily be written off as coincidence. For those who do have a Bible you can find the verse 2nd Peter 3:8, which basically says that a thousand years is like a day to God and a day like a thousand years. Well if that is true, and if it is also true that God created everything in six days, then maybe it was a lot longer than 144 hours, especially since time has no limits on God.

Now, imagine for a moment that you are God. Try to describe your surrounding is human terms. You can’t. The reason is, because God doesn’t live in a universe. He isn’t limited to three dimensions, or time. Where God is, there is no light, matter, energy, color, sound, taste, up, down, right, or wrong. The only thing we know of God is love. God is made of pure love. So now I guess it wouldn’t be that hard to create something completely new.

So continue to pretend being God for a moment. You feel like creating something new so you speak (and speak is the only way to describe it because before God created this universe, there was no sound) and all of a sudden there is matter. (God's voice is loud, so I guess there was a Big Bang) For him it is just that easy. The thing that man can't understand is how can matter be created if we have been taught that matter can't be created or destroyed. I guess that's just a question we will have to ask God.

Okay, so now God has the Heavens and the Earth. He has angels that worship him like robots; they have no choice but to. But somehow God is not fulfilled. The praise he feels from his angels feel more like love letters that he has written to himself. So he decides to create free will. He decides that man will carry this ability and starts to create them. The Bible says that man was created from the dust. Okay now go outside and pick up a handful of dust and look at it under a microscope. What do you see? You will see plenty of single celled organisms. Could it be possible that we came from that? As a side note, Lee Strobel did a lot of evolution bashing, which the theory deserves, but in his book, the Case for a Creator, he said that he didn’t know if we evolved of not, but that if we did evolve, there was nothing natural about our selection.

So now God has a being with free will called humans. It is true that we have free will just by the fact that the homo sapien is the only species on earth known for suicide. We can chose when we die. So God completed his greatest work of art. The reason why it is so great is because now something has a choice to worship him if it wants to. The angels had to. Just think of how it would make God feel if a human said, “No God, you don’t deserve my praise right now because you let my wife die and my life is falling apart. I hate you God!” That would hurt God a lot. But what happens when a human says, “You know what God, I don’t feel good right now. I have a head ache, my mom’s in the hospital, I don’t know how I’m gonna pay my next light bill, and my girlfriend just left me for a better man. But no matter what, I just want to let you know that I love you, and I thank you that you woke me up this morning. And I don’t know how I’m gonna get past all of these problems, but at least I know I don’t have to go through it alone. I love you Lord!” God begins to rejoice when that happens on Earth. And that is why humanity isn’t a failed experiment.

To end, I believe in God because I can feel him when I’m slow down and just stop for a moment. The Bible says that he speaks in a still soft voice, so I challenge you to just stop and listen to the inside of yourself. And the reason why we use a Bible is because God won’t tell you anything that isn’t in his word. That is how you know God is speaking to you and not just your brain.

Obviously, I'd take them apart individually, but you begged us not to. (It's not hard to see why).
I dunno; the part about "escape velocity" made me laugh for a good long time, and I needed that.

To end, I believe in God because I can feel him when I’m slow down and just stop for a moment. The Bible says that he speaks in a still soft voice, so I challenge you to just stop and listen to the inside of yourself. And the reason why we use a Bible is because God won’t tell you anything that isn’t in his word. That is how you know God is speaking to you and not just your brain.
Thank you. Got that, Hoberbudt? Take notes. ;)

Got not "out there," God "in here."

When i'm in heaven and your all in hell, (after)life will be so much easier.

Plus, you say how it aint true that you don't listen to our arguments. Who started this thread? An Atheist? No, my point is clear.

Look I don't hate you atheists, I love you guys, and I want you all to find Jesus like I have and find some real menaing to your lives, otherwise what are you living for? To die?

When i'm in heaven and your all in hell, (after)life will be so much easier.

Plus, you say how it aint true that you don't listen to our arguments. Who started this thread? An Atheist? No, my point is clear.
We absolutely listen to your arguments

Listening != Agreeing

Edit cause you did

Why must life have a meaning?

And no not living to die ... living to make the best world that we can in this life to pass it on to our kids and their kids

Look I don't hate you atheists, I love you guys, and I want you all to find Jesus like I have and find some real menaing to your lives, otherwise what are you living for? To die?
To live.

Life is its own reward.

When i'm in heaven and your all in hell, (after)life will be so much easier.
How in the world are you going to get someone saved by talking to them like that. When people read that they say to themselves, "Well if that's what Christianity is all about, then why would I want that?" You are supposed to be a light for all to see and be guided toward, not to be disgusted and turned away by.

Look I don't hate you atheists, I love you guys, and I want you all to find Jesus like I have and find some real menaing to your lives, otherwise what are you living for? To die?
There is no problem living for death. Death is when we get to spend forever with God in heaven remember? And since God created us, and then died for us, that means that we already have meaning. One of the major points of life is simply realizing that.

When i'm in heaven and your all in hell, (after)life will be so much easier.

Plus, you say how it aint true that you don't listen to our arguments. Who started this thread? An Atheist? No, my point is clear.

Look I don't hate you atheists, I love you guys, and I want you all to find Jesus like I have and find some real menaing to your lives, otherwise what are you living for? To die?

Sorry, what was that? I wasn't listening....

Hollow rhetoric, my friend... that's the problem... you keep on banging your drums and beating your chests and tearing your hair and yelling out loud... and it IS all very impressive...

But, unfortunately, without evidence... what is the difference between evangelism and delusion?

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.


Funny...I've been an atheist for nearly 20 years. I have tons of common sense...it says, "if you can't see it, IT ISN'T THERE!!".

Christianity is only 1600 years old...I'm sure it will peter out eventually...

But I give you credit...the image of a sheep with a large brow ridge and wide mouth is funny...neaderthalic sheep...

Wait a minute...Christians don't believe in Neanderthal Man? Who told you about evolution? Not allowed my christian friend...doesn't fit with the bible. You will have to use Pagan sheep next time.

I'm curious as to how long Atheism has been around. Was it around before Christ or is it a relatively new thing? I know the Bible says something about warning people not to follow the ways of a person without God, I think it was a proverb I'm not sure.

I believe God can never be proven to exist so I'm in a state of limbo. Rejecting the idealogy of organized religion and going off to find my own standards. Like Nietzche told me to, and before anyone calls me a Nazi, if you ever read any of his work, they are usually very anti-Nazi, with praise for the Jews, mixing blood for genetic strength, etc. It was his demented sister that altered his work to support her Nazi friends. Whatever proof you offer about God existing or not existing is flawed because our very reality is flawed.

Which I can prove mathematically.

let a = b

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1 Divide both sides by (a?- ab)

2=1? Well therefore Algebra is a lie.

Here is another one

Theorem: A positive integer n is equal to any positive integer which does not exceed it.

Proof by induction:

Case n = 1. The only positive integer which does not exceed 1 is 1 itself and 1 = 1.

Assume true for n = k. Then k = k-1. Add k to both sides and get

k+1=k.

Well lets just screw all of math then. Math is supposed to reflect our reality. Therefore I believe that what I consider to be math is actually insanity on my part. So this "reality" is subjective and everything is interconnected. If I think so, then it is so. Merely because I think so. Thats my two cents, if they exist.

This does not prove that God doesn't exist because mathmatics is man-made; man is imperfect, so even if what you say is true, that only proves that man was wrong about something, which has nothing to do with any god or religion.

I don't know what to believe. I know there is something more to life, a lot of Hindu beliefs click with me. I'll be honest, I don't know all the details of Christianity. We had a debate in Anthropology Creation vs. Evolution and I took neither side. I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers or live my life the way a book tells me to. The people for evolution presented many strong arguments and all the Creationists would do was quote passages from the bible or say "he's god, he can do anything"... I wasn't impressed... BUT what else could they say, really? I didn't read through all 133 posts of this thread but I'd like to hear a Creationists arguement as to why they believe in God. There's no logical argument for it, just like most great things in life.
I'm home sick today, with nothing to do but sleep, so I'll take this as bit of a challenge and try to create a good argument for god (not the Christian God, mind, just god). I have only a layman's learning in logic, but hopefully it will at least be rational.

First off, we exist, and things exist. "I am aware of things, therefore there is something to be aware of." If you wish, I can run through the metaphysical arguments for it, but taking this as a starting point I will begin with the premise that we exist. From this idea, and with our unique subjective perspective on the world, we get the concept of duality: "I" the self, and everything else that is not me. By being aware of the "not me" things, we conclude that there is a me for them to be different from, the agent of awareness. So although it cannot be aware of itself, the self learns of itself by being in relationship with everything else.

I have a thought, and I recognize that thought as "mine." It's not me, but it's mine. No one else may know that thought, if it is not spoken or actualized. It belongs to me, to the self. So some of the "not me" things we own. "My mind," "My body," "My relationship with others," "My ability to perceive," etc.; these things belong to the self inherently. It claims them for itself and they become part of its identity. Other things we don't own, they are separate from us, although, depending on circumstances, we may lay a claim on some of them ("my home," "my friends," "my job," etc.) and so make them a part of our identity, albeit a fluidic part.

We put ourselves in relationship to others, too. We have family who comfort us and ground us in the world. We meet other minds who stimulate us, other bodies who exite us, and we develop feelings as we socialise with them. Relationships are one of the things we do best. We learn and grow from each other, and discover things about ourselves by putting ourselves in relationship to others.

Always, there is the subjective perspective on things, the view from our "self" looking out via the mind at these "not me" things. But we cannot look at, can never see, for ourselves, "me" the self. We are deprived of that, but we accept it and have unquestioning (and in most cases, unwitting) belief in it. So what, you may ask, does this have to do with god?

God is a concept of transcending our self, that unknowable "me", with a "being" who symbolizes something external that corresponds to our unknowable self, sometimes identified as our soul. God is the soul of the universe, the soul of the "not me" things.

"We cannot know or even imagine the nature of the consciousness which is the universe. All we can do is to formulate an image of what we conceive as divine in relation to the limitations of our own consciousness."* With this image, this symbol we create, we form a relationship in an attempt to better understand ourselves.

Religion is that relationship, to address and learn more about ourselves by putting ourself in relationship with the unknowable self envisioned as separate from our self.


*from 'The Myth of the Goddess, Evolution of an Image'. The quote continues, "We do not know how or when the god image first arose, whether from dreaming sleep or from waking vision. All that can be said is that the experience of divinity exists in the soul and it feels itself related to something greater than itself. The image is sacred, for it is this above all that binds that part of the psyche incarnated in time and space to the unseen dimension that enfolds it ... As we have seen, the image of the divine can be feminine or masculine, or both together. The greatest danger of any religious belief, including monotheism, is idolatry: that is, identifying any particular image of the deity with the whole of divine truth, and ulitimately, therefore, worshipping an image created by the human mind."

If god is infinately powerful, can he create a wall so tall that he couldn't jump over it?


The way I see it is this...if you want to be completely logical about it, Agnosticism is the only way. There is no way that a finite being can completely confirm or deny the existance of God. So, it really just comes down to faith. If you choose to believe that there isn't a God and that helps you, more power to you. If you choose to believe that there is a god and it helps you, good for you. I believe that God is either everything or God is nothing. Where my beliefs stand on this issue is irrelevant. Atheism isn't logical....neither is total faith in God. Do I choose to be logical? For the most part, yes I do. I feel that belief in God makes more logical sense than atheism because there must be a source to everything. Something can't come from nothing. My two cents.

that's not what I said. My point was, if your theory doesn't CARE that it starts with a chicken, only that you've ended with a caddy with no regards to that something in there MUST be wrong, then your theory isn't working properly. If you have no care what form life began with, how are you gonna make theories on what it did after that?

Bullocks. You don't believe in the theory of Gravity because you don't know how the universe began? Evolution is a theory for the way life is observed to behave. It says nothing about where it came from in the beginning. It only speaks to the evidence we have for current behavior. Much like the theory of gravity doesn't need to tell us where objects came from to tell us how they interact.

I thinK what I disdain most about Christianity, is the need for delusion, inorder to follow it.
Some Christians take an absolute translation of the bible, and insist that every word of it is as unbreakable as the law of gravity.
But when you point out some of the inconsistancies therein, they immediatly pretend it has some other meaning, than whats plainly written.

Sometimes they only believe what they are told to believe.
I had a conversation with a christian on this forum about one of the Gnostic texts.
Gospel of Mary, to be specific.
This person, like most christians were told many times that these books are not "Canon", and therefore are not the word of God.
However, they take a 1000 year old Catholic Pope's word for it.
Many of them arent even Catholic.
This person said that just by reading it, she could tell that it was "evil" and dreaded the "forbidden knowledge, and rituals inside".

I cant tell you how silly I find that.
What makes one nearly 2000 year old document "The word of God", and another "evil"?

Believing in the bible means to ignore the scientific evidence of evolution, and the BILLIONS of years the Earth has been around.
So, when such questions are put to the Christian, all they will say is its a matter of "faith".

Faith is a sense of assurance that you get from reputation.
I have faith that my dog will want to go outside soon.
Hes done it before, you see....

Faith to the Christian, means believing the most outrageous, backwards, impossible, fable ever written, and being given absolutely no evidence in any fashion, but that every single question about the universe will all be answered when you die.

This does not prove that God doesn't exist because mathmatics is man-made; man is imperfect, so even if what you say is true, that only proves that man was wrong about something, which has nothing to do with any god or religion.


Man is imperfect.

Man was created in God's image.

Ergo...God is flawed.

Not necessarily. Just because we may look like something that is perfect doesn't mean we are perfect. I still don't believe in God because I believe religion was created a) to explain things in nature that we have now figured out, b) to act as a scapegoat to blame things on, c) to combat people's fear of death, and d) to keep people in line and establish superiority. I also haven't seen any proof of divine beings and as a man of science, I need to see proof first. I fully respect people's choice of faith until those choices start to seep into my life in cases like abortion and euthenasia. Just because your god says something is evil is no reason to impose that belief on others.

As a side note, this isn't directed to anyone and I'm really just ranting...

Going by the philosophical definition of God being an uncaused cause, I probably do believe in him/her/it.


However I don't believe in any of the major religions as, acceptable and seemingly kind as the moderates are, the roots of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are still painfully reflected from hypocritical fundamentalists and extremists which basically themselves provide enough proof to me that organized religion is total and complete BS as a way of salvation of the soul (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

Too much corruption, too much stupidity and too much strife caused by religion, I'm supposed to put the matter of my entire life into the hands of people who only hundreds of years ago went around persecuting people like Copernicus and Galileo because they were too narrow-minded and insecure to accept scientific and social progress? Sorry, no can do.


Inquisition, Witch Hunts, Crusades, Jihads, most of the world's terrorism and many of the world's wars, genocides and so forth are all caused by organized religion. I simply cannot accept the idea that something which causes so much death and destruction could also be the ultimate embodiment about all thats good and kind...

Sorry for double posting, but there's another thing thats been nagging me. I've seen quite a lot of people who convince others that a god of some type exists. But however, I have seen many Christians and so forth, use this argument to also somehow make it seem that this argument is stone cast proof that every single thing about their doctrine, including how god killed a group of children by letting a bear eat them because they were making fun of somebody, is completely correct. (which I still have no idea why that is justified, but "lets not let anything like our conscience get into the way of us doing what is good and right" honest to god I have seriously heard christians trying to convert me using this argument, their idea is that the we can't rely on the conscience to do what is right or wrong because the conscience ).

Right, time for me to step in.

I used to be an athiest, but I converted to enkism (satanism for all you non-pagans) because it makes so much sense, it is the only religion I have found that accepts science as true, it accepts evoloution and all scientific theories that I believe in, it also accepts reincarnation, magick (there is no definate way to spell the word magick), demons and the astral plane, all of which I believe in, so I converted to a enkist because all of those things seem true to me (and because I want to help kill thet fricking Jehova).

that probably dosnt make any sense at all, as I am typing this I am tired, its teh morning and ive just woke up.

I'd say it's a bit paradoxical to argue that, after we got knowledge from the tree and God gave us free will, we're expected to decide against thinking for ourselves and "have faith" in the existance of a being who leaves no evidence more solid than that of a half-assed conspiracy theory.

One of the problems I have is with the Bible. There's no way that book will make any athiest believe in God. Quite the opposite, I'm surprised Christians can get away with it. Read Joshua, Judges, and Kings for the best examples what I'm trying to point out. *After* declaring "Thou shalt not kill", God proceeded to either directly kill or order the deaths of well over one million people.

The other problem is with Christians themselves. You *won't* convert an athiest with logical fallacies and fiction. They thought their way into their belief (the belief that God doesn't exist) and you will have to prove them wrong to change their minds. I have known athiests who find faith on their own but that's a different story, usually referring only to those who need that kind of crutch in their lives.

I believe God can never be proven to exist so I'm in a state of limbo. Rejecting the idealogy of organized religion and going off to find my own standards. Like Nietzche told me to, and before anyone calls me a Nazi, if you ever read any of his work, they are usually very anti-Nazi, with praise for the Jews, mixing blood for genetic strength, etc. It was his demented sister that altered his work to support her Nazi friends. Whatever proof you offer about God existing or not existing is flawed because our very reality is flawed.

Which I can prove mathematically.

let a = b

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1 Divide both sides by (a?- ab)

2=1? Well therefore Algebra is a lie.
You know where this falls short, don't you? All mathematics crumbles when dealing with an indefinite Infinate, which a^2 - ab is. If a = b, (a? - ab) = 0 and you are creating a divisor to infinity when you try to divide an equation by it. Under such conditions, not defined by the scope of algebra, no result can be given, because the Infinate is not defined by the Axioms of Maths.

x / 0 = y / 0, regardless of any value of x or y. That is a property of Zero, not of x and y.

Parallels could easily be made with using the Infinate to try to solve a Spiritual problem, but that's just raw rhetoric on my part. ^^;


Well, this sure has come far from when I left it back in page 100... ¬¬;

Again, I find myself looking at a scenario whereby Christianity is being debated by those who would milk it of its promises and hopes yet do not yet fully understand its implications - the Selfish Christians - and those who see such representatives and immediately think that their view and anything underlying it is not worth the millions of reams of paper it is repeatedly printed on because of such an interpretation. And again, I seem to keep coming back to the problem whereby those who are Atheist seem to be so solely based on their understanding and experiences of the one common faith of their Christian society.

I'll forward anyone who cares to a topic I made a while back about Selfish Christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437638) wherein I argue that although the organisation suffers from a fundamentally flawed (if useful in the current climate) selfish nature, correctly following it through ultimately transcends that selfishness innate within it and ends up with something not unlike an eastern religion.

God is revealed in many forms to many people; the Christian Church's deity is just one of those forms, and reverence of nature could very well be another (possibly even the most accurate, but of that I merely speculate). Whether God has always been, whether he is even outside the scope of time or whether he came into existence a few tenths of a second/years/aeons after it started isn't really that important, nor are promises of reward or punishment in any theoretical life hereafter.

I think God is the spirit of belevolence and wonder in the world. Even if he's purely conceptual, it makes sense to behave in a manner both kind and fair, and to engage with the beauty of existence regardless of its origin. If he is any more than that, he will look favourably upon those who seek understanding in the world with interest, enthusiasm and openmindedness. The important thing, and this goes for both sides of this little bipartitionist argument, is to genuinely analyse, and to keep doing so. The second you think you know the answer and stop the search, your journey is as good as over and your appreciation for "creation" (nature, Gaia, whatever you want to call it) dies with it.

Someone said a while back in this topic that "Neither side will be able to convince the other of their views". I think the issue here is not with any conflicting natures of these two beliefs; rather, it is that both sides have allowed themselves to be utterly dominated by their adopted viewpoint. Neither of you are really looking any more; a reaction to a certain faith's impact on you through your society drives your entire theological philosophy. You're grouped, and perfectly happy with that. That, God or no, is a dead and Selfish belief.

Play your own devil's advocate every now and then, remembering that not every argument against yours belongs to the team you're directly competing against.

I dunno; the part about "escape velocity" made me laugh for a good long time, and I needed that.

The sad thing is... I believe it was supposed to be a 'serious' post...

Which is a shame, because it only really served any purpose as light relief...

Man is imperfect.

Man was created in God's image.

Ergo...God is flawed.

Originally, man was God's image. But Adam and Eve chose to sin against him condemning themselves and all others who were created after them to be imperfect and seperated from God. God is not flawed, man is, and being God's image does not mean exactly like God, as Adam and Eve weren't.

[QUOTE=Flatulant Fatasses]If god is infinately powerful, can he create a wall so tall that he couldn't jump over it?


We will never know on earth. He can do anything, which means it's possible for him to create this wall, but as I said, he can do anything, so he could jump over it too. It's incomprehensible to us.

We will never know on earth. He can do anything, which means it's possible for him to create this wall, but as I said, he can do anything, so he could jump over it too. It's incomprehensible to us.
All-powerful, all-knowledgeable and all-present are infinates. Absolutes. They are human designs, and flawed ones at that. You cannot reason with infinates, but the fault is not with our reason... The fault is with the Infinate that we use to describe such a scenario because it does not naturally occur.

God may be as powerful, as knowledgable or as present as it is possible to be within the confines of this universe, multiverse or whatever existence that God resides within and at the top of. But that is not the same as saying Omnipotent, as I'm sure you know.

Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolent are self contradictory and thus even Disprovable. It is these descriptions that are flawed and must be replaced. That does not lessen God in any way, because such things are merely human descriptions and God exists (or does not, it's unimportant) independently of anything we humans assign to him, but it does mean that describing God as capable of Anything is an incorrect description by the standards of life or spirit in this world or any others that I can think of or have been led to consider.

Unless, that is, you want to say that God can make False become True, in which case I say that logical order of any sort breaks down and I might as well claim to be God myself, as well as simultaneously a purple giraffe with green spots and a ruff around my neck, a can of aerosol branded by the French Connection, an engaging book by John Grisham and a small blue refridgerator, and be just as justified in my statements for all the difference reasoning would make.

Thank you. Got that, Hoberbudt? Take notes. ;)

Got not "out there," God "in here."

?
:confused:

Funny...I've been an atheist for nearly 20 years. I have tons of common sense...it says, "if you can't see it, IT ISN'T THERE!!".


So tell me, what exactly DOES oxygen look like?

So tell me, what exactly DOES oxygen look like?
He never said with the unaided eye ... as long as you can see and prove the tool you are using to "see" with it is acceptable as well

Though if you use a tool that cant step for step be broken apart and examined then you lean on faith

Which is fine for emotional reasons but unacceptable as far as empirical data is concerned

?
:confused:
Sorry to confuse you. :) That was in reference to #1975 and finding the God who is somehow both within and without time and space.

God is "in here." The only place to find him is in your heart.

Sorry to confuse you. :) That was in reference to #1975 and finding the God who is somehow both within and without time and space.

God is "in here." The only place to find him is in your heart.
*cuts out heart in eternal search of god*

:)

*cuts out heart in eternal search of god*

:)

"...it's your choice, babe... just remember, I don't think you'll be back in three days time, so you choose well..."

</cryptic>

Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolent are self contradictory and thus even Disprovable. It is these descriptions that are flawed and must be replaced. That does not lessen God in any way, because such things are merely human descriptions and God exists (or does not, it's unimportant) independently of anything we humans assign to him, but it does mean that describing God as capable of Anything is an incorrect description by the standards of life or spirit in this world or any others that I can think of or have been led to consider.

Unless, that is, you want to say that God can make False become True, in which case I say that logical order of any sort breaks down and I might as well claim to be God myself, as well as simultaneously a purple giraffe with green spots and a ruff around my neck, a can of aerosol branded by the French Connection, an engaging book by John Grisham and a small blue refridgerator, and be just as justified in my statements for all the difference reasoning would make.
UpwardThrust, this might be one to save for the collection.

So tell me, what exactly DOES oxygen look like?

While I can't draw it in here it looks kinda like Saturn if all it's moons drew trails across the sky...

Don't Christians go to science class at all? The oxygen molecule has been examined through an electron microscope. Here's a picture (with colors used for artistic purposes. As a gas the electrons appear to create a sphere.

http://www.rkm.com.au/OXYGEN/


What does god look like? Got a picture?

He never said with the unaided eye ... as long as you can see and prove the tool you are using to "see" with it is acceptable as well

Though if you use a tool that cant step for step be broken apart and examined then you lean on faith

Which is fine for emotional reasons but unacceptable as far as empirical data is concerned

Thanks for the support. While I can't personally break down a microscope (I''m a Web Developer) I know people who can.

Here's another pic of an oxygen molecule...a lesser microscope because this is from an environmental study of caterpillars...I have pictures of those too...still waiting on the god pic though...and don't send me that Virgin Mary on the side of a bank crap. I lived near that place in Florida and knew the guy that pulled off the scam, admitted to it and still made millions for his "Blesses Righteousness".

http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/wonderquest/2004/03-26-oxygen-molecule1.gif

UpwardThrust, this might be one to save for the collection.
Done :) awsome

While I can't draw it in here it looks kinda like Saturn if all it's moons drew trails across the sky...

Don't Christians go to science class at all? The oxygen molecule has been examined through an electron microscope. Here's a picture (with colors used for artistic purposes. As a gas the electrons appear to create a sphere.

http://www.rkm.com.au/OXYGEN/
"All of these images are pictures of highly simplified models." And the other picture is a blur.

So I still don't know what oxygen really looks like. ;)

Done :) awsome
Thanks. I liked that one. ^^

"All of these images are pictures of highly simplified models." And the other picture is a blur.

So I still don't know what oxygen really looks like. ;)

Have too agree with you on that, those are just very simple computer animations.
Not photographs at all

i'm an agnostic athiest because i think the whole concept of a higher power is highly unlikely. in my opinion the idea is popular because humans naturally feel scared and helpless without an omniscient paternal figure (or figures, for that matter) and the promise of existance after death. even if i was considering belief in a deity, i'd still remain an agnostic humanist of sorts because there is relatively little distinguishing the core beliefs of major religions. there are contradictions and conondrums within every religion and until i could rectify that i could never see myself shacking up with christanity, or islam, or buddhism or anything of that sort.

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)

I have read those books, and I believe Jesus existed. I simply believe that the arguments that support atheism are far more logical and seem to make far more sense when I take into consideration what is already scientific fact. Those books you mentioned were poor examples of people trying to link religion to science to keep the faith of the faithful. Doesn't wash with people who can think for themselves, and the problem is that the religious aren't accustomed to doing that.

I have read those books, and I believe Jesus existed. I simply believe that the arguments that support atheism are far more logical and seem to make far more sense when I take into consideration what is already scientific fact.

Why do people think that there is any scientific fact which disproves God's existance?

i'm an agnostic athiest because i think the whole concept of a higher power is highly unlikely.

How do you apply any kind of probability to God's existance?

Careful with these christians, their god orders them to kill anyone who doesn't worship their god.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers,
of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth,
you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him;
but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.


Probably best not to mention their psycho god.

Leviticus 24:13-16

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: "Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.

And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death." All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.


You know, I could fill this messageboard with pages upon pages of nutty stuff from the bible. The thing is, christians pick and choose what to believe in and what to teach others. Like, if you work on the sabbath you are to be put to death(Exodus 31:14-15). Is that a good rule? Seriously, the bible is a catalogue of atrocities. Your messiah jesus story is one of many for the period (Apollonius of Tyana being another).


Numbers 21:6
6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

Come on, honestly, read that to someone and look them straight in the eyes and tell them that's what you believe.


Those Josh McDowell books are horrible. In the first evidence book he uses the Shroud of Turin, the filthy rag that was carbon dated and proven to be fake. He backs his "evidence" up by quoting other authors like Sir William Ramsey (who also uses the christian book selling catchphrase "I used to be an atheist")

Someone tell me in the revised edition of evidence contains the chapter "The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience". It was filled with prophecy and predictions. I'm sure it would have had to been removed.

Jesus claimed to be god.

Joshs reasoning is as follows
Only one of these can be true:
A) Jesus was lying about being god and knew it to be untrue.
B) Jesus only believed he was god and didn't know it was untrue.
C) Jesus was god.

Josh will tell you that Jesus was not known as being a liar; so it cannot be A.
Josh will use the bible to show that Jesus performed miracles by curing blindness etc; so even if Jesus only believed he was god it wouldn't explain the miracles meaning it can't be B.
Which by default leaves you with only C since only one can be true.



But hey, I won't be able to argue with religious people who are religious because of faith, you can't argue with someones imagination. But if you are religious because you think science and/or morals coexist with the teachings of the bible, you are very misinformed.

Careful with these christians, their god orders them to kill anyone who doesn't worship their god.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10:
If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers,
of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth,
you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him;
but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.


Probably best not to mention their psycho god.

Leviticus 24:13-16

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.
Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: "Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.

And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death." All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.


You know, I could fill this messageboard with pages upon pages of nutty stuff from the bible. The thing is, christians pick and choose what to believe in and what to teach others. Like, if you work on the sabbath you are to be put to death(Exodus 31:14-15). Is that a good rule? Seriously, the bible is a catalogue of atrocities. Your messiah jesus story is one of many for the period (Apollonius of Tyana being another).


Numbers 21:6
6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

Come on, honestly, read that to someone and look them straight in the eyes and tell them that's what you believe.

Have you ever heard of the old/new covenent distinction? Why do you think Jesus died on the cross. Well allow me to explain. The wages of sin are death. Pure and simple. Not just physical death (which comes out of Adam and Eve's sin) but spiritual death also. Because sin's wages are death, up untill Jesus's death God had the right to kill anyone he wanted at any time because they had sinned. However, when he sent Jesus he changed that. Jesus's death made it posible to have our sins forgiven, meaning that they no longer counted against us. Thus God wants us to live as long as possible and gives as many people as he can a chance to hear his word so that they can be saved.

Have you ever heard of the old/new covenent distinction? Why do you think Jesus died on the cross. Well allow me to explain. The wages of sin are death. Pure and simple. Not just physical death (which comes out of Adam and Eve's sin) but spiritual death also. Because sin's wages are death, up untill Jesus's death God had the right to kill anyone he wanted at any time because they had sinned. However, when he sent Jesus he changed that. Jesus's death made it posible to have our sins forgiven, meaning that they no longer counted against us. Thus God wants us to live as long as possible and gives as many people as he can a chance to hear his word so that they can be saved.Have you ever considered the Gospel/Letters distinction? One of which chronicles the life of Jesus, the other is a collection of correspondence surrounding speculation on what his death meant.

Romans is no more adequate a source of scripture than Leviticus is, and it is ultimately from the letters of Paul that the mistranslation of Hell, the meaning of Jesus's death as a spiritual ticket to the afterlife, the encouragement of widespread evangelism as the core of your life, the doctrine of original sin and the identity of God as a specific being are made canon; all based in his secondary reading of Jesus, his life and his identity.

Incidentally, the "Wages of sin = death" comes from Romans, which is why I brought the issue up. ^^;

Has anyone here actually looked to the dictionary for a meaning for miracle?
Here it is: "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature". The New Testament was written many hundreds of years ago. What seems normal and commonplace now would definitely have seemed magical and miraculous 2000 years ago. Who is to say that Jesus is not a healer who had a vast knowledge of natural medicine? I am not saying because of this Christianity is a misguided religion, or anything to that effect. I am just warning to people to take what they read in the bible in context. Cultural ideologies were extremely different thousands of years ago, so of course there are going to be some 'nutty' laws in there that we find absolutely ridiculous, and of course we should never apply them today, because they were laws that fit the past, and not the present. The bible has undergone so many translations over hundreds of years - this can also pose problems. For example, the Hebrew word for "virgin" did not at all mean someone who was not sexually experienced, it meant a young girl. Which Mary probably was - The Christian belief that Jesus came by an immacculate conception could have been based on poor translation of the bible rather than the actual intent of the author. To summarise: read the bible in context!!!

Have you ever considered the Gospel/Letters distinction? One of which chronicles the life of Jesus, the other is a collection of correspondence surrounding speculation on what his death meant.

Romans is no more adequate a source of scripture than Leviticus is, and it is ultimately from the letters of Paul that the mistranslation of Hell, the meaning of Jesus's death as a spiritual ticket to the afterlife, the encouragement of widespread evangelism as the core of your life, the doctrine of original sin and the identity of God as a specific being are made canon; all based in his secondary reading of Jesus, his life and his identity.

Incidentally, the "Wages of sin = death" comes from Romans, which is why I brought the issue up. ^^;

If its in the Bible as part of the new covenent then its valid. Also, while the phrase "wages of sin are death" is from Romans, the concept is around for far longer, specificly Genesis. Since sin can be defined as rebellion against God and God said to Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit, they would die. Eating the fruit was rebelion and so they died.

And the letters are not speculation. Paul was in direct contact with God on more than one ocation (specificly the Road to Damascus and the Sheet of Meat are the examples I am thinking of) and he was in contact often with those who were the disciples of the disciples, so he was getting the word of Jesus granted not directly from those who knew him but still very powerfully. Also there are many obvious reasons why the new covenent and the new Testement are more important in some ways. See this web site for a further comparision

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

If its in the Bible as part of the new covenent then its valid.St Paul's interpretation of Jesus has no effect on the new covenent, nor should it be held with greater esteem than the works of Christ himself.
Also, while the phrase "wages of sin are death" is from Romans, the concept is around for far longer, specificly Genesis. Since sin can be defined as rebellion against God and God said to Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit, they would die. Eating the fruit was rebelion and so they died.Rebellion against God by doing what God allowed you to do isn't possible. If God didn't appreciate the benefits of such fruit, he wouldn't have created it; plain and simple. Ultimately, there was some reason for the fruit's creation, and that reason is pretty simple; the tree gave Adam and Eve a sense of Self Awareness, and although it resulted in an awareness of death and a separation from Eden, it morphed God's creations into beings with whom he could relate.

Taking the fruit was not rebellion, nor did God retalliate.
And the letters are not speculation. Paul was in direct contact with God on more than one ocation (specificly the Road to Damascus and the Sheet of Meat are the examples I am thinking of) and he was in contact often with those who were the disciples of the disciples, so he was getting the word of Jesus granted not directly from those who knew him but still very powerfully. Also there are many obvious reasons why the new covenent and the new Testement are more important in some ways. See this web site for a further comparision

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.htmlAlmost all of those points refer to letters, with the exception of a few verses in John. Either way, all you have to go on with Paul is a few experiences he had with the divine; that doesn't make him God's irrefutable figurehead. The letters are, undoubtedly, Paul's Human understanding of what Jesus was and how he worked with Saul's Jewish beliefs. As such, they maintain a recognisable falliability that bears no more weight than anyone else who feels that they have experienced the truth and wants to write a book on it.

i dont take any religion litteraly or even believe them but i pay homage to the gods of ancient britain who were worshipped but not taken litteraly 'til the druids and romans turned up and screwed everything over.

I don't mean to grief any religion here, but this is my personal belief.

Short answer: My perception of logic

Long answer:

My non-belief in a god (note my deliberate faliure to capitalize the word god, I'm not talking about any specific perception) is caused by his faliure to answer the common population's prayer (look at all of the recent disasters that have happened) even though the same common population believe that he is omniscient and omnibenevolent. The only way that I believe a god could exist is...

A) in a Black-and-White style system of multiple warring dieties, or...

B) an evil god, or a god bent on revenge against the human race (drifting towards ecology here), or a biased god (I once believed this one).

Then again, I'm not totally atheist. I'm atheist at times, agnostic at others and a believer at others. (You'll usually find me disproving the existence of a higher intelligence one minute then shouting "God!" at the next)

How do you apply any kind of probability to God's existance?

Well since his existence is impossible according to the laws of physics and theres no evidence to suggest that he exists, its unlikely that he (or any god) does.

For example God is supposed to be omnipitnent, but he has no mass or tangible form so he shouldnt be able to exert any force or energy.

And as we all no matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the creation of the universe in itself is an impossiblility. so one must assume the matter has always esisted and was therefore not created. so no creator.

My agnosticism (rather than full-blown atheism) is based on the fact that Christianity, Islam, and the religion from which they sprung: Judaism, were basically started by patricarchal extremists as a reaction to the predominant matriarchal pagan religions of the time.

Men were insecure about their sexual inferiority to women (who can bear children - hence their deification as 'creators' - and have orgasm after orgasm, while men are done after the first, by and large..), thus a small faction of mystics within the nomadic Hebrew people created a 'cult' of followers emphasising a masculine, conservative, logical god ('Yahweh/Jehova') to undermine the social and sexual dominace of women. It took a couple of thousand years, but eventually it gained enough popularity to act as a catalyst for the Hebrews' later escape and exodus from Egypt. Upon returning to Caanan, they found that it was full of Caananites, so slaughtered them all, for the 'Promised Land' in which they'd lived for only a couple of decades years previously.

All laws, politics, dogma, industry and economy are in one way or another based on maintaining a (forcibly seized) masculine dominance of society. It is entirely possible that the god Yahweh (aka 'God', Allah, Jehova) was a cynical artifical construct to bolster the cause of masculine dominance, emphasis on 'Father', 'Lord', 'Saviour' as opposed to 'Mother' 'Mistress' and 'Nature' - tenets common all over the world at that time (and some which remain today). Pagan rituals like sacrificing animals, having orgies, gazing at stars and constellations must have really got to these uptight, insecure, anal patricarch figures.

These modern religions all started off as cults, remember, no more or less credible than the Roman or Greek god panethon. Do you chuckle at stories of Dionysus - god of getting leathered and going on the piss - and his celestial buddies? Do you think: 'did people really and honestly believe that?'? Well, a 500BC Roman citizen would laugh at you for believing in an omnipotent fatherly god.. Who's right? It just so happened that the Yahweh-based religions gained massive popularity over a long drawn-out process of pitching, publicising, prosletysing, cajoling, commonly as a pretext for war or invasion (funny how things change :rolleyes: )..

So, sure, spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.

In laymens' terms: it's all a crock. Simple as.

NB: I have no feminist axe to grind, feminism became ridiculous after about 5 minutes in the 60's. In any case I'm a guy.You may not be a feminist, but much of what you are saying was pulled out of the oversized rears of feminists. The vast majority of anthropolgists have not found one matriarchal society in human history. There aren't even any sexually-equal societies. They are all patriarchal.

My non-belief in a god (note my deliberate faliure to capitalize the word god, I'm not talking about any specific perception) is caused by his faliure to answer the common population's prayer (look at all of the recent disasters that have happened) even though the same common population believe that he is omniscient and omnibenevolent. The only way that I believe a god could exist is...

A) in a Black-and-White style system of multiple warring dieties, or...

B) an evil god, or a god bent on revenge against the human race (drifting towards ecology here), or a biased god (I once believed this one).
Maybe god (/gods) just doesn't have the power to answer prayers of that magnitude. Maybe people's beliefs of god as omniscient, benevolent and potent aren't correct; maybe a god that isn't defined by the tenates of Christianity might exist.

The thing is, you ARE talking about a specific perception; the perception that assumes that God and interaction with him is defined by one group of humans. It's no use calling yourself an Atheist at all if you only disprove one form of God.

St Paul's interpretation of Jesus has no effect on the new covenent, nor should it be held with greater esteem than the works of Christ himself.

Since Paul does not contridict Jesus there is no cause for concern on holding it of higher value than Jesus.


Rebellion against God by doing what God allowed you to do isn't possible

There is significent diffrence between what God gives us the ability to do and what he allows us to do.

Well since his existence is impossible according to the laws of physics and theres no evidence to suggest that he exists, its unlikely that he (or any god) does.


The laws of physics do allow for things to exist outside space time (As Einstien demonstrated)


For example God is supposed to be omnipitnent, but he has no mass or tangible form so he shouldnt be able to exert any force or energy.


See above

Also, how exactly do you know God has no tangaible form or mass? Have you met him?

Since Paul does not contridict Jesus there is no cause for concern on holding it of higher value than Jesus.Hah. That's like saying that Richard Dawkins' meme idea is just as valid as biological evolution because it doesn't contradict with Darwin, yet follows on from his ideas.

My idea of what God and the Kingdom of Heaven are don't contradict Jesus either (God the emergent consciousness of life, Heaven a state of oneness and contentment with this consciousness), but it's still an idea I've devised after thinking about it for a while and being inspired by the world around me. There is no divine authority to my thinking; it's human. Paul is exactly the same. The only way to claim otherwise is to say that all humans are touched by the same authority regardless of their faith, and that his writings are therefore only as acceptable scripture as transcripts of all other Christian sermons.

Paul is not God. To place his teachings higher than Jesus' is ultimately idolatry; but more than that, it is a dampener on exploration of what the man actually meant, it creates and requires ridiculous dogma that is not necessary for discipleship and it symbolises the egocentrist nature of humanity when you would rather listen to some human preacher telling you what you want to hear than an even greater power telling you what you need to hear, think about and change with for yourself.

A Question for Christians...

I note that in many religion threads (and there are a few of them) the arguement quickly decends to flaming (from all sides) and bitterly fought battles where nobody will budge. One impression i get from these (particulary god exist and evolution threads) is that many christians argue that for whatever reason god exists and therefore christianity is true. Why is this? How does the existance of god confirm the correctness of christianity? How does the existance of god confirm the christian creation myth?

From my own point of view I personally believe God (or a God of sorts) exists, I don't need proof of this and am not trying to sway anyone elses opinion if they do not believe in god. But although I believe in God i do not agree with religion and the tendancy of religions to demand a monoploy on the truth.

Paul is not God.

But God clearly saw fit to include his works in the Bible. He allowed it to become part of scripture. God obviously had his reasons for this. I know God himself never directly edited the Bible, in a way we understand. However in the same way he has plans for all things so he controled the events where nessecary to make certian manuscripts part of the Bible and certian ones not. Now I am not saying you should hold Paul's teaching higher than Jesus's, but Biblically speeking there is nothing which can make it any less scriptuaral. If the two contradicted each other then obviously Jesus's teachings are more important, but they dont. As for the dogma your refering to, I'd appricate some elaboration on what exactly you mean, specific examples would be helpful.

Why is this? How does the existance of god confirm the correctness of christianity? How does the existance of god confirm the christian creation myth?

I agree that the existance of a God does not confirm the Christian claim as being true, you need to instead look at the evidence and theology surrounding the Christian claim. There are various ways of doing that, of course.

It's no use calling yourself an Atheist at all if you only disprove one form of God.
I suppose I was leaning to the more Abrahamic religions when I made my last post, and not attempting to disprove, for example, the belief of god as a positive concept (truth?) would actually fit in with the idea I tried to disprove a god on.
Well, I wasn't sure I was a real atheist either. I suppose I can only call myself agnostic, and as such I can't answer the question above and have contributed nothing to the topic. I'll shut up.

I'm a Catholic who is dating an atheist.. Seeing an issue like this makes me think.. you all use such big words. :headbang:

You may not be a feminist, but much of what you are saying was pulled out of the oversized rears of feminists. The vast majority of anthropolgists have not found one matriarchal society in human history. There aren't even any sexually-equal societies. They are all patriarchal.

False, Puebloans were highly matriarchal. That's just one example from North America.

Since Paul does not contridict Jesus there is no cause for concern on holding it of higher value than Jesus.



There is significent diffrence between what God gives us the ability to do and what he allows us to do.

Wrong. Paul directly contradicts Jesus. He amends the Judge not lest ye be judged statements. He amends the Golden Rule which Jesus says is the summary of the Law and the prophets.

Even atheists are aware of their souls and their sins. You may not believe in a god - but it doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Even atheists are aware of their souls and their sins. You may not believe in a god - but it doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

I'm curious what you mean by this...

I'm curious what you mean by this...

Even atheists feel GUILTY. Of what they deem wrong. Without a soul that is sensitive to sin, there would be no feeling of guilt. When do you see dogs feel guilty of eating meat and refusing their food?

Even atheists feel GUILTY. Of what they deem wrong. Without a soul that is sensitive to sin, there would be no feeling of guilt. When do you see dogs feel guilty of eating meat and refusing their food?

Atheists don't believe in the concept of souls or sin though... this seems a little like me rationalising the Christian idea of a direct experience of God as some kind of brain malfunction. It makes sense to me, but you don't experience it that way. And atheist (generalising a bit here) don't experience guilt or immorality as sin.

Atheists don't believe in the concept of souls or sin though... this seems a little like me rationalising the Christian idea of a direct experience of God as some kind of brain malfunction. It makes sense to me, but you don't experience it that way. And atheist (generalising a bit here) don't experience guilt or immorality as sin.

It's not a belief that causes existence. It's the existence that causes a belief. Even if atheists do not believe it directly, it is still affecting their lives.

Even atheists feel GUILTY. Of what they deem wrong. Without a soul that is sensitive to sin, there would be no feeling of guilt. When do you see dogs feel guilty of eating meat and refusing their food?

This is evidence of higher brain function and a sense of subjective right or wrong (people don't all feel guilty about the same things). This is not evidence of a soul.

Wrong. Paul directly contradicts Jesus. He amends the Judge not lest ye be judged statements. He amends the Golden Rule which Jesus says is the summary of the Law and the prophets.

Can you show me where you think this is happening?

This is evidence of higher brain function and a sense of subjective right or wrong (people don't all feel guilty about the same things). This is not evidence of a soul.

Perhaps that higher brain function is your soul. And yet all true Christians feel guilty of the same things, and small things, like jealousy, lying, hatred etc.

Even atheists feel GUILTY. Of what they deem wrong. Without a soul that is sensitive to sin, there would be no feeling of guilt. When do you see dogs feel guilty of eating meat and refusing their food?

That's circular reasoning. You're saying the soul exists because guilt is evidence of a soul. Guilt is not evidence of the existence of the soul, it is only your opinion.

Thge existence of a "soul" is not a pre-requisite for guilt. All you need to feel guilty about wronging someone or doing something bad is a conscience.

If you believe that your conscience is your soul speaking to you, that's fine. That's what you believe. But it is not what I believe and you certainly can't use it as "proof" that the soul exists.

That's circular reasoning. You're saying the soul exists because guilt is evidence of a soul. Guilt is not evidence of the existence of the soul, it is only your opinion.

Thge existence of a "soul" is not a pre-requisite for guilt. All you need to feel guilty about wronging someone or doing something bad is a conscience.

If you believe that your conscience is your soul speaking to you, that's fine. That's what you believe. But it is not what I believe and you certainly can't use it as "proof" that the soul exists.

All truths are circularly reasoned at the very end.

What exactly is the difference in function between a soul and conscience?

I've been an atheist for a while, but a recent event has reinforced my disbelief greatly. I live (or at least used to live) in New Orleans. Now if there were a god, why would he do something like this, sending this hurricane to devastate us, displacing thousands of people, killing thousands of others. Thousands of people are without jobs, homes, or families because of this storm. If a god existed, why would he let this happen to all of these people? Things like this are the reason I don't believe in a god.

All truths are circularly reasoned at the very end.

What exactly is the difference in function between a soul and conscience?

The difference is that my conscience was imparted to me by my mother, not by some celestial big daddy.

The difference is that my conscience was imparted to me by my mother, not by some celestial big daddy.

And you have proof that Celestrial Big Daddy did not impart your conscience to you through your mother? And He's not just a Celetrial Big Daddy, but He also truly is, Man's Best Friend.

God is actually not far. He's just - here. Why does everybody have the concept that God sits up there and knows nothing about the contemporary world.

I've been an atheist for a while, but a recent event has reinforced my disbelief greatly. I live (or at least used to live) in New Orleans. Now if there were a god, why would he do something like this, sending this hurricane to devastate us, displacing thousands of people, killing thousands of others. Thousands of people are without jobs, homes, or families because of this storm. If a god existed, why would he let this happen to all of these people? Things like this are the reason I don't believe in a god.

Yeah, I'm an agnostic. I think there's either no god, or there is a god that makes up the entire universe and is pretty much indistinguishable from there being no god. I don't believe that any god could have any involvement with morality, I see nothing about the universe to suggest it is the creation of an omni-benevolent being.

And you have proof that Celestrial Big Daddy did not impart your conscience to you through your mother? And He's not just a Celetrial Big Daddy, but He also truly is, Man's Best Friend.

God is actually not far. He's just - here. Why does everybody have the concept that God sits up there and knows nothing about the contemporary world.

I can prove that he did not... as soon as you can prove that he did.

Like I said, you are welcome to your beliefs. But that is all they are. THey are true for you and you alone. They are not true for me.

I don't mean to grief any religion here, but this is my personal belief.

Short answer: My perception of logic

Long answer:

My non-belief in a god (note my deliberate faliure to capitalize the word god, I'm not talking about any specific perception) is caused by his faliure to answer the common population's prayer (look at all of the recent disasters that have happened) even though the same common population believe that he is omniscient and omnibenevolent. The only way that I believe a god could exist is...

A) in a Black-and-White style system of multiple warring dieties, or...

B) an evil god, or a god bent on revenge against the human race (drifting towards ecology here), or a biased god (I once believed this one).

Then again, I'm not totally atheist. I'm atheist at times, agnostic at others and a believer at others. (You'll usually find me disproving the existence of a higher intelligence one minute then shouting "God!" at the next)

For everyone who, such as this person, is complaining about how bad things happen to "good" people so God either doesn't exist or hates everyone, here is some scripture that might prove useful. Romans 9:14-33

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."
Israel's Unbelief
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

#1, Who are you to questions what God does? God created you and can do with you as he likes. Just like clay does not question the potter, you shouldn't question God. His will is the important thing, not your complaints.

#2, God is a compassionate and merciful God but he decides who he has passion and mercy on. You do not get to choose who you think is good and bad in your mind and then tell God who should live and die. No one is "good" because we have all sinned. Therefore, bad things don't happen to good people because there are no good people. "Good" is relative and the only one who is good is God. None of us are even close to good compared to Him.

#3, The common population's prayer is not what God's will is. The common population of this earth is evil in nature and only desires what will benefit itself. God answers prayer according to his will, not what people want. The common population wants a new car, a new house and 1000000000 million dollars, but its not Gods will for everyone to have that. God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, but nowhere it says that he is omnibenevolent and gives everyone what they want.

#4, God shows his power in may ways that people do not see because its not obvious enough for the human population. God shows his power through controlling the amount of hurricanes that hit different places. God uses his power to restrain bad weather but no one ever thanks God for hurricanes not not appearing and hitting places. But when people forget about Gods power, and he does create a hurricane that destroys a city, everyone is shocked that God didnt restrain the storm. If God wanted too, he could have had 500 Category 5 hurricanes his New Orleans at once. Would you be complaining about one category 4 hurricane then? Of course not. Maybe if the "common population" respected Gods power, He would not have to show it through a hurricane. But there will always be sin and disrespect for God no matter what happens, as seen here by everyone saying God doesn't exist. If there was no sin, we would still be in the Garden of Eden with perfect lives.

No matter what I say here, there are people who are going to disagree with me on the existance of God. Everyone knows down deep that God exists but have hardened their hears against him and choose to rebel. Just remember, God is always there for you. He is there with the people in the south comforting them when they ask for it. Just ask yourself, why are you here? People ponder over the meaning of life all of the time. I already know the meaning of life and its simple. The meaning of life is to serve and fellowship with God and to accept his son Jesus as Savior, while telling others about it. Why else would we be here if there is no God, there would be no purpose. Believing that we came from a puddle of primordial ooze that was caused by some big explosion is just sad. We would just live and die with no purpose in life. People call is fact because of science, but science is all made up by people who dont understand where things come from. You are trusting in a guess by someone who doesnt know everything. Why not trust in someone who does know everything, God. I know the outraged rebuttals are coming. For those in the south affected by the hurricane, I am praying for you. Remember, if you trust in God, he will be with you and comfort you.

--- Snip ---Again, Romans. See above for my issue with Paul.

Perhaps that higher brain function is your soul. And yet all true Christians feel guilty of the same things, and small things, like jealousy, lying, hatred etc.

Perhaps that higher brain function is completely explained through physical means and thus offers no evidence of God or a soul. In fact, that's exactly what it is. I believe in God and the soul, but I'm aware that neither can be proven or are evidenced in our existence. That's why Christianity requires faith.

As far as 'true' Christians, I totally disagree. What people consider a 'true' Christian changes with the church. You haven't offered anything in the way of evidence. Grab me twenty-five Christians and I can come up with a dozen examples of incidents where some would feel guilty and some would not. This suggests that guilt is something internal to us and not based on an objective greater truth. I don't believe guilt has anything to do with Christ or God. You haven't shown any evidence that it does.

#1, Who are you to questions what God does? God created you and can do with you as he likes. Just like clay does not question the potter, you shouldn't question God. His will is the important thing, not your complaints.

#2, God is a compassionate and merciful God but he decides who he has passion and mercy on. You do not get to choose who you think is good and bad in your mind and then tell God who should live and die. No one is "good" because we have all sinned. Therefore, bad things don't happen to good people because there are no good people. "Good" is relative and the only one who is good is God. None of us are even close to good compared to Him.

#3, The common population's prayer is not what God's will is. The common population of this earth is evil in nature and only desires what will benefit itself. God answers prayer according to his will, not what people want. The common population wants a new car, a new house and 1000000000 million dollars, but its not Gods will for everyone to have that. God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, but nowhere it says that he is omnibenevolent and gives everyone what they want.

#4, God shows his power in may ways that people do not see because its not obvious enough for the human population. God shows his power through controlling the amount of hurricanes that hit different places. God uses his power to restrain bad weather but no one ever thanks God for hurricanes not not appearing and hitting places. But when people forget about Gods power, and he does create a hurricane that destroys a city, everyone is shocked that God didnt restrain the storm. If God wanted too, he could have had 500 Category 5 hurricanes his New Orleans at once. Would you be complaining about one category 4 hurricane then? Of course not. Maybe if the "common population" respected Gods power, He would not have to show it through a hurricane. But there will always be sin and disrespect for God no matter what happens, as seen here by everyone saying God doesn't exist. If there was no sin, we would still be in the Garden of Eden with perfect lives.


Well, any god fitting that description and I will just have to agree to disagree. God apparently gave me humanistic morals that causes me to find him immoral, and if he needs to torture me for eternity as a result, well, that all seems pretty pointless.

*snip assorted scriptures*

#1, Who are you to questions what God does? God created you and can do with you as he likes. Just like clay does not question the potter, you shouldn't question God. His will is the important thing, not your complaints.

#2, God is a compassionate and merciful God but he decides who he has passion and mercy on. You do not get to choose who you think is good and bad in your mind and then tell God who should live and die. No one is "good" because we have all sinned. Therefore, bad things don't happen to good people because there are no good people. "Good" is relative and the only one who is good is God. None of us are even close to good compared to Him.

#3, The common population's prayer is not what God's will is. The common population of this earth is evil in nature and only desires what will benefit itself. God answers prayer according to his will, not what people want. The common population wants a new car, a new house and 1000000000 million dollars, but its not Gods will for everyone to have that. God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, but nowhere it says that he is omnibenevolent and gives everyone what they want.

#4, God shows his power in may ways that people do not see because its not obvious enough for the human population. God shows his power through controlling the amount of hurricanes that hit different places. God uses his power to restrain bad weather but no one ever thanks God for hurricanes not not appearing and hitting places. But when people forget about Gods power, and he does create a hurricane that destroys a city, everyone is shocked that God didnt restrain the storm. If God wanted too, he could have had 500 Category 5 hurricanes his New Orleans at once. Would you be complaining about one category 4 hurricane then? Of course not. Maybe if the "common population" respected Gods power, He would not have to show it through a hurricane. But there will always be sin and disrespect for God no matter what happens, as seen here by everyone saying God doesn't exist. If there was no sin, we would still be in the Garden of Eden with perfect lives.

No matter what I say here, there are people who are going to disagree with me on the existance of God. Everyone knows down deep that God exists but have hardened their hears against him and choose to rebel. Just remember, God is always there for you. He is there with the people in the south comforting them when they ask for it. Just ask yourself, why are you here? People ponder over the meaning of life all of the time. I already know the meaning of life and its simple. The meaning of life is to serve and fellowship with God and to accept his son Jesus as Savior, while telling others about it. Why else would we be here if there is no God, there would be no purpose. Believing that we came from a puddle of primordial ooze that was caused by some big explosion is just sad. We would just live and die with no purpose in life. People call is fact because of science, but science is all made up by people who dont understand where things come from. You are trusting in a guess by someone who doesnt know everything. Why not trust in someone who does know everything, God. I know the outraged rebuttals are coming. For those in the south affected by the hurricane, I am praying for you. Remember, if you trust in God, he will be with you and comfort you.

A god that would make his "flock" suffer for his whims is not a compassionate god. It is a petty, petulant god.

You claim that "everyone deep down knows that god exists", but that is so asininely wrong it's almost inconceivable. You THINK that everyone believes there is a god because that is what you believe, but I myself refute that with every breath I take. I certainly do not believe, deep down, that there is a god.

You can have a purpose in life without god. Just because YOU cannot conceive of one doesn't mean that others can't.

And as an aside... if god knows everything he knew that Adam and Eve would seek knowledge. A "sin" for which he then condemned them for eternity, if you believe your book. Setting someone up to fail then damning them for eternity because they did is not a mark of compassion. If anything it shows that your god is just as petty and brutal as your devil.

And as an aside... if god knows everything he knew that Adam and Eve would seek knowledge. A "sin" for which he then condemned them for eternity, if you believe your book. Setting someone up to fail then damning them for eternity because they did is not a mark of compassion. If anything it shows that your god is just as petty and brutal as your devil.

He did design their brains, after all, this does not completely determine human behaviour but he obviously left us pretty temptable. What if our brains were designed like Vulcans from Star Trek instead? "No, eating that apple wouldn't be logical." Problem solved, without removing free will.

Religions serve sociopolitical means. Not more, not less. They're an instrument to bring order to a large group of people. Allow me to elaborate.

The human being is, from its social structure and social thinking, a pack animal. We can relate to a few relatives, a few friends, but aside of those maybe 20 people, we couldn't care less about the rest of humanity. Do you mourn when your neighbor dies (let's assume you didn't really know him)? Nah. Do you care if someone gets mugged somewhere in your town? Hell, why should you. Do you sit in the hospital when your friend is having his appendix removed? You bet!

Now, when people started to form larger groups, we have to implement some kind of means to keep them from going for each other's throat to get their possessions. Sure, you could come up with some kind of law, but hell, who'll enforce it? A kills B and nobody's seen it (and we're still about 2000 BC, there are no closed-circuit cameras or other fancy stuff), nobody's gonna drag A to court.

That's what people sometimes call Anarchy. It's not, but that's not the topic today.

So, in comes religion. What's more convenient than threatening people with all kinds of torture and unhappyness when they step out of line, observed by some kind of all seeing, all knowing god you can't hide from? You even don't have to give them proof, since, well, who can peer through to the "other side" and give you evidence whether you go to heaven or hell?

Look at all of the bigger religions. They all implement pretty much the same kind of sociopolitical system:

1. Some deity that knows and sees everything, or some kind of "karma" (however you want to put it) that tracks your behaviour.

2. Punishment for killing, stealing or stepping out of line in any other way, including stepping out of line from religious matters.

3. Reward for being nice to people you don't know but who do belong to your nation/state/tribe/you name it.

4. Punishment and rewarding happens in the afterlife or next life.


So, in a nutshell, religions was a means to keep people in check when you couldn't keep them in line any other way. Today, that function is obsolete.

Thus religions are obsolete.

Can you show me where you think this is happening?

Show me anywhere that Paul suggests that you judge people and this is a contradiction. Show me anywhere that Paul revives levitical law and this is a contradiction. Show me anywhere that Paul suggests you treat some people in a way you would not have them treat you and this is a contradiction.

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)

These authors are generally too busy toting the rainbow flag (of Christianity for clairity) to realize that their arguments are based on smoke and mirrors. Nothing they conclude comes to a point at all.

My atheism is based on the idea that I have no reason to believe in the supernatural evidence of god. As far as the supernatural...there is more support for the ideas of the existence of vampires and aliens than of the christian god.

But God clearly saw fit to include his works in the Bible.

Or, alternatively, 'god' had no impact, because the works were collected by human editors.

Even atheists are aware of their souls and their sins. You may not believe in a god - but it doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

This makes no sense.... my 'sins' are the things I feel were wrong for me to do - they may have little or NO parallel with your 'religious' catalogue of sins.

And, what do you mean 'aware of their souls'? From the Hebrew, yes - perhaps - since the Hebrew scripture shows the soul as being the 'life' in the flesh. But, there is no justification in the old Hebrew texts for this 'soul that lives beyond the flesh' concept.

And, MANY people (Atheists AND the religious) disbelieve the concept of a 'entity within us that outlives our flesh'.

Even atheists feel GUILTY. Of what they deem wrong. Without a soul that is sensitive to sin, there would be no feeling of guilt. When do you see dogs feel guilty of eating meat and refusing their food?

Atheistic guilt doesn't mean thinking you upset god, or risked the Inferno.

An Atheist who feels 'guilt' is feeling the regret that he/she violated their OWN moral statutes, or the moral statutes that they have chosen to follow.

Guilt is regret... it needs no 'supernatural' basis.

All truths are circularly reasoned at the very end.

What exactly is the difference in function between a soul and conscience?

Read the Old Testament in the native tongue, and you won't have to ask questions like this anymore.

Atheistic guilt doesn't mean thinking you upset god, or risked the Inferno.

An Atheist who feels 'guilt' is feeling the regret that he/she violated their OWN moral statutes, or the moral statutes that they have chosen to follow.

Guilt is regret... it needs no 'supernatural' basis.
I have to agree, unless one wants to associate the conscience with soul and God.

There is nothing about Man that is justifiably caused by 'the supernatural' as a source, that cannot be explained within nature. This is the reason I have come to suspect that what is deemed 'the supernatural' is, in fact, unreal things (conceptual things: concepts, imaginings, feelings, intuition, etc.) that have been 'concretized' (to borrow a phrase from mythology) or made to be "as if real". Concretization means that over time the "as if" dropped off (perhaps as a result of a 'layman' understanding of metaphysical terms like 'real' and 'unreal'?) and what was once understood to be 'spiritual' is now mistaken for being real. I see this in television shows that allege to "explore supernatural things" like ghost sightings, psychic abilities and witchy conjuring of spells.

I have to agree, unless one wants to associate the conscience with soul and God.


I have read the scripture in the native tongues, and it is quite clear, in the Hebrew, that the 'soul' has a very different function to 'conscience', or anything like that.

Basically, in the native tongue, the soul is little more than the 'fire in the blood'.... it is what makes flesh hungry, our vitality - as different from the spirit - which is the animating element of breath.

Nothing about carrying psychology from God to the animal.


There is nothing about Man that is justifiably caused by 'the supernatural' as a source, that cannot be explained within nature. This is the reason I have come to suspect that what is deemed 'the supernatural' is, in fact, unreal things (conceptual things: concepts, imaginings, feelings, intuition, etc.) that have been 'concretized' (to borrow a phrase from mythology) or made to be "as if real". Concretization means that over time the "as if" dropped off (perhaps as a result of a 'layman' understanding of metaphysical terms like 'real' and 'unreal'?) and what was once understood to be 'spiritual' is now mistaken for being real. I see this in television shows that allege to "explore supernatural things" like ghost sightings, psychic abilities and witchy conjuring of spells.

Great is your wisdom. I agree entirely.

It is the situation of the "I Believe" being dropped from the beliefs... until the 'belief' becomes mistaken for 'fact'.

I have read the scripture in the native tongues, and it is quite clear, in the Hebrew, that the 'soul' has a very different function to 'conscience', or anything like that.

Basically, in the native tongue, the soul is little more than the 'fire in the blood'.... it is what makes flesh hungry, our vitality - as different from the spirit - which is the animating element of breath.

Nothing about carrying psychology from God to the animal.
That fits in well with my understanding of archaic beliefs. Astrological symbolism equates the soul/spirit, the firey Sun, with viality, will and power (animation of the immaterial being via material being). Guilt and conscience are symbolically speaking left to the watery Moon, which can drive us to irrational acts of lunacy.

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)

I just read the first post in this thread (the thread being titled "A question for Atheists..." and I am trying to figure out what the question is. It seems to me the question REALLY is "Are you wrong in what you believe? I think you are, and here is what you should read so YOU will know you are."

I don't see the need to answer a question that presupposes an answer and then berates me for it before I even get to posit an answer.

That fits in well with my understanding of archaic beliefs. Astrological symbolism equates the soul/spirit, the firey Sun, with viality, will and power (animation of the immaterial being via material being). Guilt and conscience are symbolically speaking left to the watery Moon, which can drive us to irrational acts of lunacy.

There you go, getting all Tarot on me... :D

I just read the first post in this thread (the thread being titled "A question for Atheists..." and I am trying to figure out what the question is. It seems to me the question REALLY is "Are you wrong in what you believe? I think you are, and here is what you should read so YOU will know you are."

I don't see the need to answer a question that presupposes an answer and then berates me for it before I even get to posit an answer.

The point of the question (as far as I can understand it, I may be wrong) is that many people refuse to belive in a religion not because there is insufficent evidence to support it (I know there is a great deal of evidence in the case of Christianity) but because religion is a concept of the supernatural and they refuse to believe in anything which contemplates the existance of soemthing non-empricically measurable and thus they close their minds to religion.

Or, alternatively, 'god' had no impact, because the works were collected by human editors.

If you look at the Bible, you see how God uses people to achive his goals all the time. I dont know the nature of the control, but he does do it.

If you look at the Bible, you see how God uses people to achive his goals all the time. I dont know the nature of the control, but he does do it.

And, if you look at other texts, God has nothing to do with the equation.

I don't worship a book... so I am not going to set any one scripture above any other.

You have the difficulty here, that you are claiming as 'fact', something you cannot prove... and which may well be ONLY 'true' for you.

If you look at the Bible, you see how God uses people to achive his goals all the time. I dont know the nature of the control, but he does do it.

This doesn't make all people involved with the Bible infallible. If someone, let's say Paul, contradicts Christ I'm not listening. Otherwise, I'd be a Paulian rather than a Christian. I believe Christ was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but when he said the Golden Rule was the sum of the Law and the prophets.

If you look at the Bible, you see how God uses people to achive his goals all the time. I dont know the nature of the control, but he does do it.

That is if you actually believe in the bible. You first have to establish how the word of god could acurately be in a book that was put together by a group of guys who were arguing over who had the right version of christianity.

This doesn't make all people involved with the Bible infallible. If someone, let's say Paul, contradicts Christ I'm not listening. Otherwise, I'd be a Paulian rather than a Christian. I believe Christ was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but when he said the Golden Rule was the sum of the Law and the prophets.

FINALLY, someone who agrees with me! There is a difference between Christian and Paulian. :D

FINALLY, someone who agrees with me! There is a difference between Christian and Paulian. :D

What do you mean, finally? You've known I think this for some time.

I can prove that he did not... as soon as you can prove that he did.

Like I said, you are welcome to your beliefs. But that is all they are. THey are true for you and you alone. They are not true for me.

But they aren't true for Dragon Bay alone, they're true for millions around the world. They may not be true to you, but you don't speak for the rest of the world anymore than a Christian does.

What do you mean, finally? You've known I think this for some time.

It's just nice to see it recognised in a thread. :D

After it isn't mentioned for a while, you kind of forget that there are other people thinking the same things.

But they aren't true for Dragon Bay alone, they're true for millions around the world. They may not be true to you, but you don't speak for the rest of the world anymore than a Christian does.

Actually - this is logically incorrect.... since MORE people are NOT Christian, than ARE Christian...

The person who speaks against Christianity IS speaking 'for the rest of the world' more than a Christian does....

I'm a Christian, and I find it entirely logical. Also, if I'm wrong, then I'm fine. If you're wrong, you burn in hell for eternitey. Take that A-hole's. And, to reply to that one dude in the beginning, Christianity treats women with respect, the Hebrew had the same faith for hundreds of years before Egypt, and Women aren't superior, I could beat many women in a cook off, fighting contest, and I could be a better parent than most moms, because i don't get PMS and menoupause. On the other hand, most women are better than me at stiching, yelling at people and generally acting superior, so I guess that does make them better. NOT. No gender is better it depends on the individual, and hereditary factors. No gender would be complete without the other.

I'm a Christian, and I find it entirely logical. Also, if I'm wrong, then I'm fine. If you're wrong, you burn in hell for eternitey. Take that A-hole's. And, to reply to that one dude in the beginning, Christianity treats women with respect, the Hebrew had the same faith for hundreds of years before Egypt, and Women aren't superior, I could beat many women in a cook off, fighting contest, and I could be a better parent than most moms, because i don't get PMS and menoupause. On the other hand, most women are better than me at stiching, yelling at people and generally acting superior, so I guess that does make them better. NOT. No gender is better it depends on the individual, and hereditary factors. No gender would be complete without the other.

Yeah. Thanks for that.

Any time you feel like making a serious point (reasoned, sourced... in sentences, that kind of thing), feel free.

Okay - back to nap time now, I think.

I'm a Christian, and I find it entirely logical. Also, if I'm wrong, then I'm fine. If you're wrong, you burn in hell for eternitey. Take that A-hole's. And, to reply to that one dude in the beginning, Christianity treats women with respect, the Hebrew had the same faith for hundreds of years before Egypt, and Women aren't superior, I could beat many women in a cook off, fighting contest, and I could be a better parent than most moms, because i don't get PMS and menoupause. On the other hand, most women are better than me at stiching, yelling at people and generally acting superior, so I guess that does make them better. NOT. No gender is better it depends on the individual, and hereditary factors. No gender would be complete without the other.

Yay for Pascal's wager. I point you to here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager#Criticisms_of_Pascal.27s_wager) for the debunking of that claim.

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?

Because atheism does not equal nihilism. Just because people do not ascribe any great reward after were done living doesn't mean they don't care. For an athiest the reward is in living now and enjoying this time they have.

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?

This post is full of false assumption, my friend.

As an Atheist, there ARE consequences for my actions. There are immediate repurcussions for every act I take. If I want to be a valued meber of my community, be remembered for what I did to help, rather than to harm - it is in my interests to do what I consider 'good' things, while I am alive.

Could I just make money, and buy to excess? Maybe... but that isn't what life is to me. I don't want to screw over every other person JUST for my own interests. And, that has cost me. But, it is far more important to me that I make a positive change to those around me... my neighbours on my road, my eighbours in my state, my neighbours in my nation, my neighbours on my world.

To the Atheist, it has to be said, MOST 'christian' acts seem calculated... like people ONLY do good for the reward later. Thankfully, I know people with (what I call 'pure') Christian hearts - who show that people are akin, no matter WHAT the creed or culture.... helping others because we think it is 'right', to treat others as we would like them to treat us.

This post is full of false assumption, my friend.

As an Atheist, there ARE consequences for my actions. There are immediate repurcussions for every act I take. If I want to be a valued meber of my community, be remembered for what I did to help, rather than to harm - it is in my interests to do what I consider 'good' things, while I am alive.

Could I just make money, and buy to excess? Maybe... but that isn't what life is to me. I don't want to screw over every other person JUST for my own interests. And, that has cost me. But, it is far more important to me that I make a positive change to those around me... my neighbours on my road, my eighbours in my state, my neighbours in my nation, my neighbours on my world.

To the Atheist, it has to be said, MOST 'christian' acts seem calculated... like people ONLY do good for the reward later. Thankfully, I know people with (what I call 'pure') Christian hearts - who show that people are akin, no matter WHAT the creed or culture.... helping others because we think it is 'right', to treat others as we would like them to treat us.

Agreed. I think it is silly to think the only reason to do good things is to be rewarded by God. Doing what is right should be and is it's own reward whether we are commended for it in the afterlife or no.

Indeed:
Read Kant

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?


I don't have to be scared into being a good person. I can do that on my own without worrying that the devil will claim me otherwise.

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?
Why shouldn't I care if I do good things? Are you implying that god is necessary in order for me to care about something? Caring is something I do, not someone else doing for me or through me.

Why should I just benefit myself, when I can do nice things for others?

There is always a reward for doing good things: a smile, a laugh, a hug, friendship, bonding, charity. Improvement.

When we die, it's all over, so we'd best make the most of it while we're alive.

I DO get as much money as I can and spend it, mostly to improve the life I have made for myself and improve the situations of others --that's called Capitalism, and love.

There are consequences in the here-and-now for every action we do.

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?
Sorry, I've probably missed about 100 pages of this thread, so it might have been explained to you. But just in case:
Atheism - lack of belief in the divine or disbelief in the divine.

You're not an atheist because there'll be no consequences to your actions. That's simply not what it means. It's not a get-out-of-jail/hell ticket. You'll never have a real answer to your question, because your question makes no sense. You can't believe that people can't & don't believe in the divine, so you attribute belief in the divine to atheists. That just isn't what atheists are.
I realise you simply can't accept that people can have strong ethics without crediting them to a god, but it is none the less a fact. But since you won't accept that, noone can ever give you a satisfactory answer.

So let me instead ask you, don't you think that it's warrented that your religion, and people like you, make atheists & normal decent human beings nervous? You - if your own statement is any indication at all - only look out for others to serve yourself.. Or rather, to save yourself.
What happens if your belief in the divine ever fails? Will you rob the nearest bank? Kidnap & rape teenage girls? Dump chemical waste in the oceans? Start a forest fire for kicks? Or maybe just grab a big ass gun, and kill anything that moves?
Because if your lose faith, what will stop you from becomming a despicable, murderous, selfserving sob?

I don't honestly know if you're completely unstable, and severely mentally ill, or if you're just being purposefully antagonistic, but if it's the latter, can you not see the immense flaw in your own presumptious argument?

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?The very fact that you need to ask that question is a primary reason why many feel your faith is flawed.

We (by which I mean non-christian moralists) don't care about reward for our actions. We simply decide how we act on the basis of how we would like people to treat us. Regardless of our origin, all of us know what it's like to be the victim of hardship and injustice. If there is any chance whatsoever of helping those around us to not have to suffer such things, even if the possibility that those people are in any way real is remote, we will do it.

There is no reward for it, but frankly, we prefer it that way. Your idea reveals an underlying desire of self-reward at the expense of all people and principles. Who do you care more about; yourself or your neighbour? As long as your morality is based around reward, your answer remains unchanged.

Sorry, I've probably missed about 100 pages of this thread, so it might have been explained to you. But just in case:
Atheism - lack of belief in the divine or disbelief in the divine.

You're not an atheist because there'll be no consequences to your actions. That's simply not what it means. It's not a get-out-of-jail/hell ticket. You'll never have a real answer to your question, because your question makes no sense. You can't believe that people can't & don't believe in the divine, so you attribute belief in the divine to atheists. That just isn't what atheists are.
I realise you simply can't accept that people can have strong ethics without crediting them to a god, but it is none the less a fact. But since you won't accept that, noone can ever give you a satisfactory answer.

So let me instead ask you, don't you think that it's warrented that your religion, and people like you, make atheists & normal decent human beings nervous? You - if your own statement is any indication at all - only look out for others to serve yourself.. Or rather, to save yourself.
What happens if your belief in the divine ever fails? Will you rob the nearest bank? Kidnap & rape teenage girls? Dump chemical waste in the oceans? Start a forest fire for kicks? Or maybe just grab a big ass gun, and kill anything that moves?
Because if your lose faith, what will stop you from becomming a despicable, murderous, selfserving sob?

I don't honestly know if you're completely unstable, and severely mentally ill, or if you're just being purposefully antagonistic, but if it's the latter, can you not see the immense flaw in your own presumptious argument?
Hammer... meet nail's head.

Show me anywhere that Paul suggests that you judge people and this is a contradiction. Show me anywhere that Paul revives levitical law and this is a contradiction. Show me anywhere that Paul suggests you treat some people in a way you would not have them treat you and this is a contradiction.

1) I asked you, its your job to display it

2) Not all levitical law was removed by Jesus's death

The point of the question (as far as I can understand it, I may be wrong) is that many people refuse to belive in a religion not because there is insufficent evidence to support it (I know there is a great deal of evidence in the case of Christianity) but because religion is a concept of the supernatural and they refuse to believe in anything which contemplates the existance of soemthing non-empricically measurable and thus they close their minds to religion.

Where is this supposed evidence? I have yet to see any Christian show evidence that actually supports the supernatural goings-on in the Bible.

Religions serve sociopolitical means. Not more, not less. They're an instrument to bring order to a large group of people. Allow me to elaborate.

The human being is, from its social structure and social thinking, a pack animal. We can relate to a few relatives, a few friends, but aside of those maybe 20 people, we couldn't care less about the rest of humanity. Do you mourn when your neighbor dies (let's assume you didn't really know him)? Nah. Do you care if someone gets mugged somewhere in your town? Hell, why should you. Do you sit in the hospital when your friend is having his appendix removed? You bet!

Now, when people started to form larger groups, we have to implement some kind of means to keep them from going for each other's throat to get their possessions. Sure, you could come up with some kind of law, but hell, who'll enforce it? A kills B and nobody's seen it (and we're still about 2000 BC, there are no closed-circuit cameras or other fancy stuff), nobody's gonna drag A to court.

That's what people sometimes call Anarchy. It's not, but that's not the topic today.

So, in comes religion. What's more convenient than threatening people with all kinds of torture and unhappyness when they step out of line, observed by some kind of all seeing, all knowing god you can't hide from? You even don't have to give them proof, since, well, who can peer through to the "other side" and give you evidence whether you go to heaven or hell?

Look at all of the bigger religions. They all implement pretty much the same kind of sociopolitical system:

1. Some deity that knows and sees everything, or some kind of "karma" (however you want to put it) that tracks your behaviour.

2. Punishment for killing, stealing or stepping out of line in any other way, including stepping out of line from religious matters.

3. Reward for being nice to people you don't know but who do belong to your nation/state/tribe/you name it.

4. Punishment and rewarding happens in the afterlife or next life.


So, in a nutshell, religions was a means to keep people in check when you couldn't keep them in line any other way. Today, that function is obsolete.

Thus religions are obsolete.

All you've done is proven that religions funcution as a method of controling a large group of people. You've not disproved any of the other religious functions, such as a response to the divine.

Where is this supposed evidence? I have yet to see any Christian show evidence that actually supports the supernatural goings-on in the Bible.

You obviously havent studied very much. I suggest you read C.S.Lewis's "Miricles" and "Mere Christianity" and other of this works to see the proof outlined and explained

But they aren't true for Dragon Bay alone, they're true for millions around the world. They may not be true to you, but you don't speak for the rest of the world anymore than a Christian does.

And they're just as UN-true for millions around the world.

The point is, personal truth does not equal universal truth.

You obviously havent studied very much. I suggest you read C.S.Lewis's "Miricles" and "Mere Christianity" and other of this works to see the proof outlined and explained

I was raised Christian. I've studied plenty.

If you're so well-read that you feel obligated to use ad hominem attacks, then perhaps you should synopsize what Mr. Lewis says.

I'll do my best to listen, even though C.S. Lewis was as Christian as they come and thus has a very obvious bias.

Ok, I have a questions for all of the atheists out there who keeps talking about doing things because it fits their morals. Why do you care if you do good things? If there is no reward for it, because when we die, its all over, then why not just do things that benefit ourselves? If there is no judgement for doing good or bad, then why dont you just get as much money as you can, buy as much as you can, and enjoy life until you cease to exist? And a reason like "to better humanity" or "its my morals" doesnt make any sense to me if you are an Atheist because there are no consequences for your actions if you dont help people. So back to my original question, Why do you care?

Because Atheism doesn't mean self-destruction. Atheism doesn't mean unbridled selfishness. Atheism doesn't mean that I have no desire to be a good person. It simply means that I don't require a celestial big daddy to spank me if I stray from his path. I lead a moral life without having to subscribe to some ridiculous dogma.

All you've done is proven that religions funcution as a method of controling a large group of people. You've not disproved any of the other religious functions, such as a response to the divine.
If you accept his argument, that religion is simply a means of social regulation, then he has disproved god. Because by his argument, god is simply a man-made regulation mechanism. Just like the police & our courts are.

You obviously havent studied very much. I suggest you read C.S.Lewis's "Miricles" and "Mere Christianity" and other of this works to see the proof outlined and explainedLewis's views are pretty much a simple combination of Pascal's Wager and the idea of using Heaven as the aspiration for actions, both of which are problematic. His 3 L's, in particular, is a fake trilemma, and his attempts to link historical accuracy of Jesus's existence to the validity of St Paul's arguments are tenuous at their best.

Lewis's arguments were necessary for his time. However, his conclusions, as well as involving large gaps in reasoning and taking his understanding of God completely for granted, come to conclusions that can only be harmful to human coexistence in the modern world (particularly on state execution, the immorality on nonchristians and the necessity of abject surrender in both body and mind to whatever God he worships).

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)
actually I dont believe in a deity because I have a stable mind which makes its own decisions and which isnt controlled by an out dated book written by a bunch of dead men who where very good at controling people through fear

Agreed. I think it is silly to think the only reason to do good things is to be rewarded by God. Doing what is right should be and is it's own reward whether we are commended for it in the afterlife or no.

Exactly. I don't do what is 'right' because I expect rewards in the next life, or even in this one.

I do what is 'right' because I would rather help people than hurt them.

Maybe it's a personality flaw. :)

You obviously havent studied very much. I suggest you read C.S.Lewis's "Miricles" and "Mere Christianity" and other of this works to see the proof outlined and explained

I've read Lewis... and his 'proofs' only work if you accept his assumptions - like the flawed assumption that societal moralities are a proof of a god.

Try harder... real evidence shouldn't rely on you agreeing to conditions.

Exactly. I don't do what is 'right' because I expect rewards in the next life, or even in this one.

I do what is 'right' because I would rather help people than hurt them.

Maybe it's a personality flaw. :)
Or maybe to cash in on a favour later

Or maybe to cash in on a favour later

Not even, really. Sometimes my friends help out, after I help them out... but I certainly don't expect it.

I'm more about the Rede side of the Golden Rule, than the Testament side.

Less "Do unto others...", more "An it harm none..."

1) I asked you, its your job to display it

2) Not all levitical law was removed by Jesus's death

Really? Not all Levitical laws were removed by Jesus's death? Where did Jesus enumerate which ones hold and which ones were lifted?

Jesus is the replacement for the Law. Jesus met the requirements of the law so you wouldn't have to. In it's place, Jesus left a couple of commands and the ten commandments, one of which is so powerful that he called it "the sum of the Law and the Prophets". To be saved, one accepts Jesus as their savior. Other than that, the only thing anyone who wishes to be saved needs to know is the teachings of Jesus Christ. You don't need to know Levitical Law. You don't need the teachings of Paul. People were saved before Paul. Please don't suggest to me that Paul arrived and changed the Law as Jesus left it or that people indeed were not saved before Paul. And in the absense of either of those, the teachings of Paul are unnecessary and quite possibly spurious.

Grave, I'm kind of lazy and not really that good at finding passages of the Bible. Would you mind pulling up a passage or two where Paul contradicts "Judge not" or the Golden Rule?

Really? Not all Levitical laws were removed by Jesus's death? Where did Jesus enumerate which ones hold and which ones were lifted?

Jesus is the replacement for the Law. Jesus met the requirements of the law so you wouldn't have to. In it's place, Jesus left a couple of commands and the ten commandments, one of which is so powerful that he called it "the sum of the Law and the Prophets". To be saved, one accepts Jesus as their savior. Other than that, the only thing anyone who wishes to be saved needs to know is the teachings of Jesus Christ. You don't need to know Levitical Law. You don't need the teachings of Paul. People were saved before Paul. Please don't suggest to me that Paul arrived and changed the Law as Jesus left it or that people indeed were not saved before Paul. And in the absense of either of those, the teachings of Paul are unnecessary and quite possibly spurious.

Grave, I'm kind of lazy and not really that good at finding passages of the Bible. Would you mind pulling up a passage or two where Paul contradicts "Judge not" or the Golden Rule?

Happily, my friend... not that I'm able to lay TOO much time to it today, but one possible leaps instantly to mind:

Jesus says, in Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

Paul, on the other hand, says in First Corinthians 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man".

I'll get back to you on the Golden Rule.... :)

Happily, my friend... not that I'm able to lay TOO much time to it today, but one possible leaps instantly to mind:

Jesus says, in Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

Paul, on the other hand, says in First Corinthians 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man".

I'll get back to you on the Golden Rule.... :)

Perfect. I knew you had it in you. I know there are many more, but one should do it.

Really? Not all Levitical laws were removed by Jesus's death? Where did Jesus enumerate which ones hold and which ones were lifted?


Jesus's death does not stop sins being sins. There are great parts of the code that still stand obviously as sins.


Paul, on the other hand, says in First Corinthians 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man".

Are you intentionaly misinterpriting. I would thought most people would be intellgenet enough to understand what that meant. What it means is that if someone takes their opinions and judgements about things from the biblical perspective, and trys to see WWJD the whole time, then people cant judge them to say "your wrong" and use a non biblical perspective to prove them wrong. Verse 16 says "For who can know the mind of the lord that may instruct him". Its basicly saying that a Christian is not under the orders of the world, but of God, and that Christians dont follow the ways of the world

Jesus's death does not stop sins being sins. There are great parts of the code that still stand obviously as sins.



Which ones? How do you determine?

Jesus's death does not stop sins being sins. There are great parts of the code that still stand obviously as sins.

Would you like to point out which are sins and which have been lifted?

Are you intentionaly misinterpriting. I would thought most people would be intellgenet enough to understand what that meant. What it means is that if someone takes their opinions and judgements about things from the biblical perspective, and trys to see WWJD the whole time, then people cant judge them to say "your wrong" and use a non biblical perspective to prove them wrong. Verse 16 says "For who can know the mind of the lord that may instruct him". Its basicly saying that a Christian is not under the orders of the world, but of God, and that Christians dont follow the ways of the world

Wow, ad hominems abound. The quote says that "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things". Your points do nothing to address this. We are all sinners and were instructed directly by Jesus not to judge the sins of others so long as we also had sin (which means we can never judge) and Paul suggested that if we are spiritual we can judge anything we want. Did you miss this point or is it just too hard to combat? We don't need to think about WWJD when it comes to the sins of others because it is not our place to judge. God appointed a judge and jury and you and I aren't it.

Are you intentionaly misinterpriting. I would thought most people would be intellgenet enough to understand what that meant. What it means is that if someone takes their opinions and judgements about things from the biblical perspective, and trys to see WWJD the whole time, then people cant judge them to say "your wrong" and use a non biblical perspective to prove them wrong. Verse 16 says "For who can know the mind of the lord that may instruct him". Its basicly saying that a Christian is not under the orders of the world, but of God, and that Christians dont follow the ways of the worldActually, Grave's interpretation makes contextual sense, which surprised me at first. The verse before reads "The man without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God..." which is a definite pointer to the ways in which Christianity is to treat discussion with non-christians.

It's a very definite implication that people of the Holy Spirit cannot be subject to opinions of other believers. You're right about the second part; the verse states that you can't use a non-biblical perspective to prove a biblical perspective wrong (which, however, Paul was not using to refer to his own words; rather the Gospel of Jesus). However, it also states in the first half of the verse that "He that is spiritual judgeth all things". There is no possible metaphorical meaning to that given the light of the second half of the message.

Basically, Paul is proclaiming that "No-one can judge... except us".

Jesus would be spinning in his grave if he hadn't got up and walked out of it already.

Basically, Paul is proclaiming that "No-one can judge... except us".


No. What he's saying is not that Christians (spiritual men) can judge other people. What hes saying it that Christians are the ones who judge all thing in a spiritual sense. When trying to do things, they try to think WWJD. He's not saying that Christians judge people in the sense that Jesus was talking about. Jesus was talking about being judgemental, condecending etc to people for particular sins. For example, the extreme end of the Chruch would say that homosexuals are worse people than they are because homosexuality is a sin. However the more sensable Chrisitans would say that while homosexuality may be a sin, we are all sinners, and its not right to judge people on the grounds of sin since we are all sinners

My atheism is based around not believing in god. And - from the evidence Christians, Muslims and Jews present - if there was a god, i wouldn't like him, so i'm kinda glad there isn't one, else i'd be in the pitch for all eternity :)

No. What he's saying is not that Christians (spiritual men) can judge other people. What hes saying it that Christians are the ones who judge all thing in a spiritual sense. When trying to do things, they try to think WWJD. He's not saying that Christians judge people in the sense that Jesus was talking about. Jesus was talking about being judgemental, condecending etc to people for particular sins. For example, the extreme end of the Chruch would say that homosexuals are worse people than they are because homosexuality is a sin. However the more sensable Chrisitans would say that while homosexuality may be a sin, we are all sinners, and its not right to judge people on the grounds of sin since we are all sinners

Christians are not the ones who judge all things in a spiritual sense. This is not our job. Jesus is the one who judges all things in a spiritual sense, not us. We are perfectly free to judge in a non-spiritual sense (e.g. legal) as, unlike in the spiritual sense, it is possible to be 'sin-free' in a non-spiritual sense.

For example, the extreme end of the Chruch would say that homosexuals are worse people than they are because homosexuality is a sin. However the more sensable Chrisitans would say that while homosexuality may be a sin, we are all sinners, and its not right to judge people on the grounds of sin since we are all sinnersYou're right about the sentiment you're making, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying that people of the spirit have the right to judge all things because their wisdom comes from the spirit. All things is a very explicit term. He's not simply saying "Judging actions" or "Judging rebellion against God"; All Things is by its very nature all-inclusive, including both groups and people, and in that he is flat-out contradicting Jesus.

You're right about the sentiment you're making, but that's not what he's saying. He's saying that people of the spirit have the right to judge all things because their wisdom comes from the spirit. All things is a very explicit term. He's not simply saying "Judging actions" or "Judging rebellion against God"; All Things is by its very nature all-inclusive, including both groups and people, and in that he is flat-out contradicting Jesus.

Think about it for a second. What can be judged. I can't judge wether the box in front of me is yellow or blue. It "is" yellow or blue, it doesnt require my judgement to be that way. However actions can be judged, in a sense of how right they are. When it is said that your actions are well judged, what that means is you useally took into accont of all the surrouning influneces and consequences, thus you created your desired outcome. In this sense, he is talking about a Christian life, and a Christian takes into account when they do things, what God wants, what God's will is. Paul isnt saying men can judge all things to be all things. Jesus's point was that only he can judge other people to be sinners or not. Paul is saying that we make judgements in our own lives about all things, he doesnt say we judge all things and say which one is sin and is not to other people.

Think about it for a second. What can be judged. I can't judge wether the box in front of me is yellow or blue. It "is" yellow or blue, it doesnt require my judgement to be that way. However actions can be judged, in a sense of how right they are. When it is said that your actions are well judged, what that means is you useally took into accont of all the surrouning influneces and consequences, thus you created your desired outcome. In this sense, he is talking about a Christian life, and a Christian takes into account when they do things, what God wants, what God's will is. Paul isnt saying men can judge all things to be all things. Jesus's point was that only he can judge other people to be sinners or not. Paul is saying that we make judgements in our own lives about all things, he doesnt say we judge all things and say which one is sin and is not to other people.

Wow, you really are reaching. Generally one should read a quote and try to figure out what it means, not try to make it mean what they want, which is what you're doing. It clearly contradicts 7:1. "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man". If a spiritual person cannot be judged by others this suggests that the first part of the statement is about judging others as well. You are trying to make the two parts of the statement unrelated so they don't contradict Jesus.

Jesus says, in Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged".

Paul, on the other hand, says in First Corinthians 2:15 "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man".
The Message Bible has this slant on it:

The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, can't receive the gifts of God's Spirit. There's no capacity for them. They seem like so much silliness. Spirit can be known only by spirit--God's Spirit and our spirits in open communion. Spiritually alive, we have access to everything God's Spirit is doing, and can't be judged by unspiritual critics.
Isaiah's question, "Is there anyone around who knows God's Spirit, anyone who knows what he is doing?" has been answered: Christ knows, and we have Christ's Spirit.

Matthew 7 says, What you do (judgement) will come back on you. The Corinthians quote says, Use spirit to be a judge of the spirit of God (to hear God's word). I don't think they are saying contradictory things at all.

Think about it for a second. What can be judged. I can't judge wether the box in front of me is yellow or blue. It "is" yellow or blue, it doesnt require my judgement to be that way. However actions can be judged, in a sense of how right they are. When it is said that your actions are well judged, what that means is you useally took into accont of all the surrouning influneces and consequences, thus you created your desired outcome. In this sense, he is talking about a Christian life, and a Christian takes into account when they do things, what God wants, what God's will is. Paul isnt saying men can judge all things to be all things. Jesus's point was that only he can judge other people to be sinners or not. Paul is saying that we make judgements in our own lives about all things, he doesnt say we judge all things and say which one is sin and is not to other people.But if he's not referring to judgement on other people, then why does he follow it up with the statement "but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement"? Unless he's changing his definition of Judging mid-sentence, the only way the phrase makes sense is if we assume that Judgement includes that on other human beings as well.

Fine. Here are further examples of contradiction. Paul sounds very much like those that condemned Jesus for eating with the immoral. Jesus' reply was that it was they that needed him most.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Oh, and here's a good one. Apparently, Paul says that Jesus was disgraceful. It is well-known that Jesus had long hair.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.

Just to name a few of the rather obvious contradictions by Paul.

Fine. Here are further examples of contradiction. Paul sounds very much like those that condemned Jesus for eating with the immoral. Jesus' reply was that it was they that needed him most.Well, you do have to remember that Saul probably Was one of the people that condemned Jesus for eating with the immoral.

Old habits die hard. >_>

Oh, and here's a good one. Apparently, Paul says that Jesus was disgraceful. It is well-known that Jesus had long hair.
...and was a blue-eyed Causasian, too. ;)

Oh, and here's a good one. Apparently, Paul says that Jesus was disgraceful. It is well-known that Jesus had long hair.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.


Actually, the nature of Jesus's hair I dont think comes from anything Biblical. I dont think its ever mentioned in the gospels how long his hair is.

Fine. Here are further examples of contradiction. Paul sounds very much like those that condemned Jesus for eating with the immoral. Jesus' reply was that it was they that needed him most.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.


Look at it carefully "anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler" the point being about hypocrytes. Meaning that if people see you ascociating amoung hypocrites, they may assume that your faith is as weak as theirs, and that you too are a hypocryte.

But if he's not referring to judgement on other people, then why does he follow it up with the statement "but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement"? Unless he's changing his definition of Judging mid-sentence, the only way the phrase makes sense is if we assume that Judgement includes that on other human beings as well.

It means the same thing, another man's judgement of what is and isnt the right things to do with your life. A Christian should be spritually mindined, meaning that he should be concerned with God's opinion of what he does and not under "any mans judgement" meaning that he should not be concerned with the opinion of "any man" but only God.

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.

Yes, they should stop this cildish nonsense! It's time for them to start growing up and believing in ghosts, zombies and flying dragons!

Actually, the nature of Jesus's hair I dont think comes from anything Biblical. I dont think its ever mentioned in the gospels how long his hair is.Chances are that, as a Jew, Jesus would have adhered to Leviticus 19:27, which demands of the Jews "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head".
It means the same thing, another man's judgement of what is and isnt the right things to do with your life. A Christian should be spritually mindined, meaning that he should be concerned with God's opinion of what he does and not under "any mans judgement" meaning that he should not be concerned with the opinion of "any man" but only God.Again, that's fair enough, but Paul is still saying that judgement of the spirit acting through men is fine, and when a man makes a judgement of another, he is defying Jesus's request. It still seems to mean that "Nobody can judge except us, because we know better", and it still seems to provide a contradiction.

It means the same thing, another man's judgement of what is and isnt the right things to do with your life. A Christian should be spritually mindined, meaning that he should be concerned with God's opinion of what he does and not under "any mans judgement" meaning that he should not be concerned with the opinion of "any man" but only God.
Doesn't that contradict your previous post?

Actually, the nature of Jesus's hair I dont think comes from anything Biblical. I dont think its ever mentioned in the gospels how long his hair is.

What's your point? The gospels have to describe his hair or he didn't have it? Jesus had long hair. This is the common conception of him.

Chances are that, as a Jew, Jesus would have adhered to Leviticus 19:27, which demands of the Jews "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head".
Again, that's fair enough, but Paul is still saying that judgement of the spirit acting through men is fine, and when a man makes a judgement of another, he is defying Jesus's request. It still seems to mean that "Nobody can judge except us, because we know better", and it still seems to provide a contradiction.

Exactly to both parts.

He originally said people who do those things and then he added and also don't associate with hypocrites. Either way, it goes against the teachings of Jesus.

Read it carefully "not at all meaning the people of this world" he's actually saying he doesnt mean non Christians. He then goes on to say "In that case you would have to leave this world" saying that its impossible not to do that.

Read it carefully "not at all meaning the people of this world" he's actually saying he doesnt mean non Christians. He then goes on to say "In that case you would have to leave this world" saying that its impossible not to do that.

I did read it carefully and deleted my post. It was errant.

Doesn't that contradict your previous post?

No. Look I'll try to explain. When Paul says "A spiritual man makes judgements about all things" what he is saying is that in a spiritual man's life, judgements about what he does and how he does it are made with God in mind, and what God wants them to do. When Paul says "he is not subject to any man's judgement" what that means is that a spiritual man does not have to listen to any other man for an authority on how to live his life. He then goes on to explain that point when he says "for who knows the lords mind that may insturct him" thus confirming there is no man at present that can tell Christians exactly what the will of God is. Only God does that, through the Bible, prayer and other methods God has.

I did read it carefully and deleted my post. It was errant.

Nice to see someone big enough to admit when they were wrong.

Nice to see someone big enough to admit when they were wrong.*Resists urge to make scathing comment*

^^;

No. Look I'll try to explain. When Paul says "A spiritual man makes judgements about all things" what he is saying is that in a spiritual man's life, judgements about what he does and how he does it are made with God in mind, and what God wants them to do. When Paul says "he is not subject to any man's judgement" what that means is that a spiritual man does not have to listen to any other man for an authority on how to live his life. He then goes on to explain that point when he says "for who knows the lords mind that may insturct him" thus confirming there is no man at present that can tell Christians exactly what the will of God is. Only God does that, through the Bible, prayer and other methods God has.Okay, we get it, God has authority to judge, man does not. But Paul says, very explicitly, that God through man with the Spirit is Still God, and therefore men whom God acts through are allowed to bear judgement. And in doing so, Paul is providing a way out for those who would Judge others; they're allowed to do so as long as God is acting through them.

Which is precisely why Fred Phelps gets away with it.

Okay, we get it, God has authority to judge, man does not. But Paul says, very explicitly, that God through man with the Spirit is Still God, and therefore men whom God acts through are allowed to bear judgement. And in doing so, Paul is providing a way out for those who would Judge others; they're allowed to do so as long as God is acting through them.


Not to judge others, to judge the decisions in their own lives. Look later on


Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God

Now firstly he is not contridicting himself by saying that spiritual men judge all things and then saying judge nothing. He is talking about diffrent kinds of judgements. Look at how Paul here is talking about motives being exposed by God. Paul is saying here that other peoples actions and motives are not to be judged by people, but by God. But earlier he is talking about peoples actions in their own lives, which they must judge by God's standards, being spiritually minded when making decsions and always keeping God in mind.

Most of the time when people find "contridictions" they dont look around more to see if they've misunderstood something.

jolt

Most of the time when people find "contridictions" they dont look around more to see if they've misunderstood something.Misunderstanding? I'm sorry, but the only "understanding" you've given me suggests that Paul changes his meaning of the word Judgement half-way through his letter without giving any sort of hint that he's doing so or that his first interpretation is in any way different.

In the first reference in chapter two, he is talking about the wisdom that the spirit brings; that the thoughts of God come to us via the Spirit, defining such thoughts as spiritual. He is saying that those who are spiritual make judgements based on the mind of Christ that gives them an insight into the mind of the Lord.

No suggestion is given that such judgements are of one's own affairs at all. In fact, the only obvious interpretation of the term judgement is that of people, particularly given the context of "a man's spirit knowing the thoughts of a man" and "he himself is not subject to any man's judgements".

Fundamentally then in the second reference in chapter 4 is the fact that Paul does not say Judge No-one. He says Judge No-thing Until God Says So. This echoes, not changes, what he said earlier about judgement on All Things; he's just applying a new criteria. It is reasonable to assume that since no apparent distinction is made to the contrary, the two judgements are one and the same and may be carried out under the Lord's influence.

Furthermore, we now have a very clear link to precisely the sort of judgement Paul is talking about; Paul notes being Judged in verse 3, pointing out that he does not Judge Himself. If the sort of judgement to which he referred was his own lifestyle then why does he immediately refer to other peoples' demand of verification of him, his faith and his integrity?
Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself... It is the Lord who Judges me.
His statement is that God can tell who is acting with integrity and who isn't; who is trustworthy and who is not. This is the judgement to which Paul refers in both sections of his letter. It is the right of judgement given to God, and it is judgement which, according to 2:15, can be used by those through whom God acts; the Spiritual Man to which Paul alludes in Romans 7:14.

Herein is where Paul goes against Jesus. Jesus tells you not to judge, and includes a strong period after that at the start of Matthew 7. Paul tells you not to judge, but includes a Semicolon: "Judge nothing [...] before the appointed time; till the lord comes". Since the Holy Spirit is currently within the church, we have a loophole.

This immediately becomes a non-issue, of course, if you sideline Paul and focus on Jesus, which is precisely what Paul himself tells you to do in 1st Corinthians 3. No teachings of man can ever take greater prescendence than teachings of Jesus, and it is therefore up to ourselves to commune with him and find out what he meant rather than to be overwhelmed by the opinions of human religion.

No suggestion is given that such judgements are of one's own affairs at all. In fact, the only obvious interpretation of the term judgement is that of people, particularly given the context of "a man's spirit knowing the thoughts of a man" and "he himself is not subject to any man's judgements".

Think about it more deeply for a second. Judgements equally mean ideas and opinions in many senses, in so far as the phrase "in my judgement" leads to an opinion being displayed. Not being subject to any mans judgements means not listening to what man says about how to live your life. We can tell this because of verse 16, talking about how no one knows the mind of the God. Since God's instructions are to men about the way to life your lives, giving the surronding verses, the men it is talking about here it would seem would be the men who tell you how to live your life. Since they dont know God it argues, they are not in a postion to be giving out judgements on how to live.


Fundamentally then in the second reference in chapter 4 is the fact that Paul does not say Judge No-one. He says Judge No-thing Until God Says So.

No, he says judge no one untill the apointed time, that is when Jesus returns. It quite clearly does not say "Judge nothing untill God says so". It says

"Judge nothing before the apointed time: wait till the lord comes."

If, by your idea that the apointed time meant "when God allowed it" then Paul would not asked them to wait till Jesus returns.


This echoes, not changes, what he said earlier about judgement on All Things; he's just applying a new criteria. It is reasonable to assume that since no apparent distinction is made to the contrary, the two judgements are one and the same and may be carried out under the Lord's influence.

The obvious distinction being that in the chapter 4 one he says judge nothing and the ealier one he says judge all things. Unless there is a change in the idea of judgement, it makes no sense.


Furthermore, we now have a very clear link to precisely the sort of judgement Paul is talking about; Paul notes being Judged in verse 3, pointing out that he does not Judge Himself. If the sort of judgement to which he referred was his own lifestyle then why does he immediately refer to other peoples' demand of verification of him, his faith and his integrity?

Here he's talking of the judgement that Jesus was talking of when he says "judge not or you will be judged". There must be a diffence of meaning else the passage does not make sense.

His statement is that God can tell who is acting with integrity and who isn't; who is trustworthy and who is not. This is the judgement to which Paul refers in both sections of his letter.

No it isnt. If it is as I have said it doesnt make any sense. He is telling us that the spiritual man judges all things and yet we should not judge anything till the return of Jesus. Those messages are contridictary therefore a logical assumption would be that they are talking about diffrent things.


It is the right of judgement given to God, and it is judgement which, according to 2:15, can be used by those through whom God acts; the Spiritual Man to which Paul alludes in Romans 7:14.

Herein is where Paul goes against Jesus. Jesus tells you not to judge, and includes a strong period after that at the start of Matthew 7. Paul tells you not to judge, but includes a Semicolon: "Judge nothing [...] before the appointed time; till the lord comes". Since the Holy Spirit is currently within the church, we have a loophole.


The lord and the holy spirit are never refered to by the same name. They are two entitites of the trinity but have diffrent names. "The Lord comes" does not mean the

"What I understand now, as never before, is that guilt is not the driving force behind responsibility. If we act in a goodly way because we are afraid of how we will feel if we do not, then we have not truly come to seperate the concept of right and wrong." -Drizzt Do'Urden

Think about it more deeply for a second. Judgements equally mean ideas and opinions in many senses, in so far as the phrase "in my judgement" leads to an opinion being displayed. Not being subject to any mans judgements means not listening to what man says about how to live your life. We can tell this because of verse 16, talking about how no one knows the mind of the God. Since God's instructions are to men about the way to life your lives, giving the surronding verses, the men it is talking about here it would seem would be the men who tell you how to live your life. Since they dont know God it argues, they are not in a postion to be giving out judgements on how to live.I have thought about that definition, and found it to be refuted by chapter 4. Had he wished for it to be interpreted your way, he should have said "Decisions" or "Choices".
No, he says judge no one untill the apointed time, that is when Jesus returns. It quite clearly does not say "Judge nothing untill God says so". It says

"Judge nothing before the apointed time: wait till the lord comes."

If, by your idea that the apointed time meant "when God allowed it" then Paul would not asked them to wait till Jesus returns.
...
The lord and the holy spirit are never refered to by the same name. They are two entitites of the trinity but have diffrent names. "The Lord comes" does not mean the
Chaper 4, verse 4: "It is the Lord who Judges me". The Lord in this context isn't Jesus. After all, Jesus never claimed that he personally would be the one to judge the living and the dead; only the Father has that right. Since such judgement is an ongoing process (the preceeding verses being "I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear...") it is only reasonable to assume that it is the Holy Spirit - God's spirit working within Paul - that is responsible for such judgement.

Since this use of "the Lord" is instantly followed by that verse on the lord coming, it is logically reasonable to assume consistency in definition.

The obvious distinction being that in the chapter 4 one he says judge nothing and the ealier one he says judge all things. Unless there is a change in the idea of judgement, it makes no sense.
...
Here he's talking of the judgement that Jesus was talking of when he says "judge not or you will be judged". There must be a diffence of meaning else the passage does not make sense.
...
No it isnt. If it is as I have said it doesnt make any sense. He is telling us that the spiritual man judges all things and yet we should not judge anything till the return of Jesus. Those messages are contridictary therefore a logical assumption would be that they are talking about diffrent things.
The problem is that it makes perfect sense. Both are saying that you can judge when Jesus is with you, but not without him. The only way in which it doesn't make sense is that it contradicts his Teacher.

There is no indication that Judgement changes meaning half-way there, therefore it is not sensible to presume that it does; if anything, presuming that words can switch meaning at will is even more non-sensical than the idea that Paul is promoting freedom of judgement for those through whom Jesus acts.


Ultimately, either I'm right, in which case Paul's writings are to be taken as human and faulty due to his misinterpretation of Jesus, or you're right, in which case Paul's writings are to be taken as human and faulty since what he was trying to get across was changed by the words he chose to use. Neither of those makes for adequate scripture.

Not to judge others, to judge the decisions in their own lives. Look later on



Now firstly he is not contridicting himself by saying that spiritual men judge all things and then saying judge nothing. He is talking about diffrent kinds of judgements. Look at how Paul here is talking about motives being exposed by God. Paul is saying here that other peoples actions and motives are not to be judged by people, but by God. But earlier he is talking about peoples actions in their own lives, which they must judge by God's standards, being spiritually minded when making decsions and always keeping God in mind.

Most of the time when people find "contridictions" they dont look around more to see if they've misunderstood something.

And most Christians don't bother looking for contradictions at all. Let alone accept the possibility of them once pointed out.

The fabulous thing about the Bible is that in many cases you can make the words dance to any tune you play.

That is not true. Each and every scripture in the bible is meant to teach a principle, or value. You say that is can “dance to whatever you want it to”, but you don’t understand it obviously

"What I understand now, as never before, is that guilt is not the driving force behind responsibility. If we act in a goodly way because we are afraid of how we will feel if we do not, then we have not truly come to seperate the concept of right and wrong." -Drizzt Do'Urden

Quoting a D&D icon....brilliant. I feel Drizzt is the most overlooked Zen master in fiction these days.

That is not true. Each and every scripture in the bible is meant to teach a principle, or value. You say that is can “dance to whatever you want it to”, but you don’t understand it obviously

Even if every scripture is "meant" to teach a principle, it often falls short or gets distorted. Man wrote the bible, man translated and edited the bible, man created the religion of Yahweh, man can follow it. I'll be the man tha doesn't follow anything used an excuse to kill millions.

"What I understand now, as never before, is that guilt is not the driving force behind responsibility. If we act in a goodly way because we are afraid of how we will feel if we do not, then we have not truly come to seperate the concept of right and wrong." -Drizzt Do'Urden

If you don't shoot me because you understand that shooting me is wrong, I'm grateful to be alive. If you don't shoot me because you're scared of the consequences, I'm equally grateful to be alive.

If you don't shoot me because you understand that shooting me is wrong, I'm grateful to be alive. If you don't shoot me because you're scared of the consequences, I'm equally grateful to be alive.Yeah, but if his consequences are shown to be evadable, you've got to deal with some self-serving angry gun-toting maniac who has no reason to not pull the trigger.

That is not true. Each and every scripture in the bible is meant to teach a principle, or value. You say that is can “dance to whatever you want it to”, but you don’t understand it obviously

What I'm saying is that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways yet most Christians interpret it in a way to avoid contradictions, even when those contradictions are the most reasonable interpretation.

Christians can make the Bible dance.

Yeah, but if his consequences are shown to be evadable, you've got to deal with some self-serving angry gun-toting maniac who has no reason to not pull the trigger.

but if they aren't, I don't. I'll take contingent good news over no good news any time.

but if they aren't, I don't. I'll take contingent good news over no good news any time.Fair enough, but you might as well have all the possibilities covered. >_>

Fair enough, but you might as well have all the possibilities covered. >_>

yep, and laws which force people to behave in ways they don't want to, or don't understand why, etc, are ok when those laws say things like "don't kill people".

A shame that when there isn't a big heavy society watching people go out and shoot and steal and rape and blah blah (qv Norlins) but since those people exist, I approve of the fact that the existence of law enforcement keeps them out of my face most of the time.

"What I understand now, as never before, is that guilt is not the driving force behind responsibility. If we act in a goodly way because we are afraid of how we will feel if we do not, then we have not truly come to seperate the concept of right and wrong." -Drizzt Do'Urden
Taking this out of context, as it was presented, as an axiom, my response is... Guilt is not the driving force behind responsibility, rather responsibility and guilt are corrective forces for irresponsible acts.

We act in a goodly way not because of fear at all, but because it improves a situation.

Nice to see someone big enough to admit when they were wrong.

To the point. I deleted the post immediately after posting. Not after reading your post. I make a habit of rereading all of my posts both before I post and immediately after I post. I noticed my error immediately after posting. Deleting the post was easier than correcting it.

What I'm saying is that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways yet most Christians interpret it in a way to avoid contradictions, even when those contradictions are the most reasonable interpretation.

Christians can make the Bible dance.

Since I have already explained the judgement one, even though others refuse to accept it (I'm not going to repeat myself simply for the benefit of someone elses ignorence) can you give some other examples. And dont use piddlingly insignifecnt points like "how many times did the cock crow", "did Adam have a belly button" etc. Those are not the spiritually significent parts.

Since I have already explained the judgement one, even though others refuse to accept it (I'm not going to repeat myself simply for the benefit of someone elses ignorence)......

I could very easily say likewise, you know. But since my beliefs have been through a patch similar to yours, they're telling me that I'm not to descend to that level of name-calling.

All I'm saying is that Christianity shouldn't be based on a human assumption of what Jesus was. Mistakes such as that one on the term Judgement are living proof of the human origin of Paul's writings. As it is, you look at Paul's "translation" and take it as verity before you even look in detail at what Jesus was talking about. That is a very, very dangerous path to go down... If any old man can come along, claim to have personally experienced God and have his words treated as irrefutable law, we are all going to end up in some very sticky situations before this life is out.

If you don't shoot me because you're scared of the consequences, I'm equally grateful to be alive.

That is what creates a criminal.

We all have moments at some point in life were "consequences" (generally laws) are no longer in our minds, be that due to anger, intoxication, over-stress, greed, poverty or whatever is going on in life at that moment. I would like to think I make my choices in that situation, not by reminding myself that the police will come knocking on my door. But by the fact that I know the actions I'm about to take are wrong. Wrong by my own personal moral standards.

Since I have already explained the judgement one, even though others refuse to accept it (I'm not going to repeat myself simply for the benefit of someone elses ignorence) can you give some other examples. And dont use piddlingly insignifecnt points like "how many times did the cock crow", "did Adam have a belly button" etc. Those are not the spiritually significent parts.

You haven't "explained" anything, Avalon. You've given your INTERPRETATION which, oddly enough, supports your already-calcified beliefs. You strike me as one of those people who can't stand to have their faith questioned for fear that they might discover something contradictory that they can't ignore.

For the record, ignorance is lack of knowledge. Ignorance does not mean "someone who disagrees with me". As such, your insults about my "ignorance" don't stand up.

Are you intentionaly misinterpriting. I would thought most people would be intellgenet enough to understand what that meant. What it means is that if someone takes their opinions and judgements about things from the biblical perspective, and trys to see WWJD the whole time, then people cant judge them to say "your wrong" and use a non biblical perspective to prove them wrong. Verse 16 says "For who can know the mind of the lord that may instruct him". Its basicly saying that a Christian is not under the orders of the world, but of God, and that Christians dont follow the ways of the world

On the contrary, read in context, I think it says that there has been ONE person who maybe was fit to judge, (and didn't)... and that Paul somehow believes he (we) can 'borrow' that authority.... in effect, I beleive Paul was saying it is okay to judge, so long as you feel justified in Christ.

On the other hand, of course, I believe that Jesus said that we have NO authority to judge - and that our trespasses in this department will be visited against us at some future reckoning.

Think about it for a second. What can be judged. I can't judge wether the box in front of me is yellow or blue. It "is" yellow or blue, it doesnt require my judgement to be that way. However actions can be judged, in a sense of how right they are. When it is said that your actions are well judged, what that means is you useally took into accont of all the surrouning influneces and consequences, thus you created your desired outcome. In this sense, he is talking about a Christian life, and a Christian takes into account when they do things, what God wants, what God's will is. Paul isnt saying men can judge all things to be all things. Jesus's point was that only he can judge other people to be sinners or not. Paul is saying that we make judgements in our own lives about all things, he doesnt say we judge all things and say which one is sin and is not to other people.

Actually... the box in front of you might be green.... in which case, you CAN judge whether it is blue or yellow... and your judgement might be different from mine... but this is irrelevent.

The Message Bible has this slant on it:

The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, can't receive the gifts of God's Spirit. There's no capacity for them. They seem like so much silliness. Spirit can be known only by spirit--God's Spirit and our spirits in open communion. Spiritually alive, we have access to everything God's Spirit is doing, and can't be judged by unspiritual critics.
Isaiah's question, "Is there anyone around who knows God's Spirit, anyone who knows what he is doing?" has been answered: Christ knows, and we have Christ's Spirit.

Matthew 7 says, What you do (judgement) will come back on you. The Corinthians quote says, Use spirit to be a judge of the spirit of God (to hear God's word). I don't think they are saying contradictory things at all.

Valid, I'm sure - but I read Matthew differently to that. I don't think he's saying anything so generic as the Rule of Three... I think he's specific to judgement... and that he's saying that nobody has the right to judge... and that those who DO judge are going to be facing a little judgement of their own, later.

And, I'm sorry - but the message Bible just looks like it's reaching for a justification. Or maybe it just looks that way to me.

That is not true. Each and every scripture in the bible is meant to teach a principle, or value. You say that is can “dance to whatever you want it to”, but you don’t understand it obviously

I wonder what your view of the Song of Solomon is, then?

Since I have already explained the judgement one, even though others refuse to accept it (I'm not going to repeat myself simply for the benefit of someone elses ignorence) can you give some other examples. And dont use piddlingly insignifecnt points like "how many times did the cock crow", "did Adam have a belly button" etc. Those are not the spiritually significent parts.


"though others refuse to accept it "... "benefit of someone elses ignorence"...

Someone obviously never learned the lesson of "judge not"...

I wonder why you view Adam's navel as unimportant, spiritually? After all - if Adam HAD a navel, it means that the creation story is metaphorical, doesn't it? Of course, there are OTHER indicators in Genesis that Adam was formed by more 'conventional' means, also...

"though others refuse to accept it "... "benefit of someone elses ignorence"...

Someone obviously never learned the lesson of "judge not"...

Ignorence can defined as "a willful lack of desire to improve one's knowledge" and since I have explained it fully and other have refused to accept it they can be defined as ignorent.

Ignorence can defined as "a willful lack of desire to improve one's knowledge" and since I have explained it fully and other have refused to accept it they can be defined as ignorent.

So if I explain in detail why everyone but me needs to be burnt to death, anyone not accepting my opinion is ignorant?

So if I explain in detail why everyone but me needs to be burnt to death, anyone not accepting my opinion is ignorant?

Ignorent of your opinion yes. But opinions are not facts.

Ignorence can defined as "a willful lack of desire to improve one's knowledge" and since I have explained it fully and other have refused to accept it they can be defined as ignorent.

Your opinion does not constitute "knowledge". It is nothing more than your opinion.

I improve my knowledge every day I am alive. I love to learn. I love to challenge my beliefs because it either strengthens them or leads me down a path that makes more sense.

You, on the other hand, are content to stagnate while you thump a millenia-old book and somehow convince yourself of even the most ridiculously unintuitive interpretations of it.

It is you who are ignorant (please note the correct spelling).

Ignorent of your opinion yes. But opinions are not facts.

Yet you treat your own opinions as fact. Hypocrite much?

Ignorence can defined as "a willful lack of desire to improve one's knowledge" and since I have explained it fully and other have refused to accept it they can be defined as ignorent.

Hubris much?

I have refused to accept your 'version' of events BECAUSE of my experience, because of my familiarity with scripture, because of my knowledge.

I do not think your 'version' is scripturally supportable, except by intricate manipulation.

Thus, I do not have a 'willful lack of desire' to do anything... I just do not see your posturing as valid.

Further I do not accept your boastful assurances that YOUR 'version' would "improve" my "knowledge".

I fear this says nothing about my 'ignorance', and a great deal about your 'pride'.

Ignorent of your opinion yes. But opinions are not facts.

Wisest words you've spoken....

Valid, I'm sure - but I read Matthew differently to that. I don't think he's saying anything so generic as the Rule of Three... I think he's specific to judgement... and that he's saying that nobody has the right to judge... and that those who DO judge are going to be facing a little judgement of their own, later.

And, I'm sorry - but the message Bible just looks like it's reaching for a justification. Or maybe it just looks that way to me.
Re Matthew, that's what I (thought I) said. ;) I don't know about this Rule of Three...

The Message is a bible written by a fellow fluent in the original languages of the Bible, the Hebrew and the Greek. His aim is to put the original meaning into modern language where it can be more easily understood. In the context of the letter Paul was writing, his interpretation does make sense, to me at least.

Ah religion, greatest of shackles and support for those with many weaknesses. A great invention indeed.

-Phil.

Yet you treat your own opinions as fact. Hypocrite much?

This is not an opinion. Its an interpretation, and as far as I can see the only one making any sense. The altentive one presented (As I have outlined) does not make sense.

This is not an opinion. Its an interpretation, and as far as I can see the only one making any sense. The altentive one presented (As I have outlined) does not make sense.

What is an interpretation if it is not an opinion? The farther you go out on your limb the weaker the branch becomes.

You're right about it being the only one that makes sense "as far as (you) can see." That's because you have willfully closed your eyes, mind and heart to any other interpretation.

That, my friend, is the very definition of ignorance.

This is not an opinion. Its an interpretation, and as far as I can see the only one making any sense. The altentive one presented (As I have outlined) does not make sense.Perhaps a pair of glasses is in order then; evidently, you're having trouble seeing very far at all.

The alternative interpretation only is nonsensical in the sense that the statement it is making is misguided. It is perfectly coherent, which is more than can be said for your own interpretation. In that respect, the other interpretation is no more nonsensical than saying that God damns sinners to hell.

it goes back to the same old problems. if god is omnipotent - why doesnrt he stop evil? Not all powerful. is it because he is manevolent - in which case he isnt good? and he isnt omniscient becauese he doent know how to stop it. wat a loser. religion is a cruch for the emotionlly weak. it should be banned. and if a conflict does exist between heaven and hell - "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven". but an athiest myself - i think its what I would do. the world would be no different without god. because god didnt create man, man created god. he is part of the imagination - and 95% of the worlds population who believe are deceiving themselves.

it goes back to the same old problems. if god is omnipotent - why doesnrt he stop evil? Not all powerful. is it because he is manevolent - in which case he isnt good? and he isnt omniscient becauese he doent know how to stop it. wat a loser. religion is a cruch for the emotionlly weak. it should be banned. and if a conflict does exist between heaven and hell - "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven". but an athiest myself - i think its what I would do. the world would be no different without god. because god didnt create man, man created god. he is part of the imagination - and 95% of the worlds population who believe are deceiving themselves.

Easy. God is nothing like the small-minded anthropomorphism that Christians believe in. I can't magine any god that actually cares what humans think or what they worship, but most people are too egotistical to imagine that they are not the centre of the universe.

Yet you treat your own opinions as fact. Hypocrite much?
Who doesn't? That is the ideal communication method given us, within the limitations of the English language.

This is not an opinion. Its an interpretation, and as far as I can see the only one making any sense. The altentive one presented (As I have outlined) does not make sense.

Oh, it makes sense. So long as you recognize that Paul was a human being and was fallible. You suggest it doesn't make sense because if it does it shows that Paul, in fact, contradicted Jesus Christ (you know that long-haired dude that Paul condemned). And if he did, you have to accept that which you WILL not do, which is that Paul was just a guy who was trying to figure out the scripture just like the rest of us. He has no more right to tell me about my connection to Jesus Christ than I have to tell him. All you've shown is that if you torture the data enough you can make it confess to anything.

I'll make a deal with you. You can continue to be a Paulian and I'll continue to be a Christian and we'll see who's right when judgement comes. I mean, heck, there's no rule about false idols or anything, so you're probably fine.

*Cookies and High-Fives for Jocabia*

^^

Who doesn't? That is the ideal communication method given us, within the limitations of the English language.

People with wisdom don't.

"The wise man knows he knows nothing"

I may not be as worldly or wise as I would like, but I have room in my brain for other people's ideas and interpretations. Which is far more than I can say for our dear Avalon.

People with wisdom don't.

"The wise man knows he knows nothing"

I may not be as worldly or wise as I would like, but I have room in my brain for other people's ideas and interpretations. Which is far more than I can say for our dear Avalon.
"The wise man knows he knows nothing"

Is that opinion, or fact? Or an opinion stated as fact?

"The wise man knows he knows nothing"

Is that opinion, or fact? Or an opinion stated as fact?

It's just a saying, Willa. One I feel has merit.

Is it fact? Who knows? Probably. After all, humans don't know everything there is to know. Nor can any sentient creature claim to be truly wise if there is always something new to learn.

I don't understand the problems between christians and atheists. I'm a humanist myself and God is my favorite fictional character. (The Simpsons rip-off)

I'm sure many more people here would believe in God if you could conclusively prove He exists.
Can you?
No.

On the other hand, can anyone conclusively prove He does not exist?
No.
As we cannot prove the existance of God one way or the other, really, there is no point in arguing about it.
There will be both people who do and do not believe because different people have different opinions. This does not make one person more right than another. If belief in a higher being feels right to you, then do it.
But do not then condemn others to whom Christianity (or any other religion) does not feel right to. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs and no-one has the right to try and impose their own on others.

"The wise man knows he knows nothing"
It's just a saying, Willa. One I feel has merit.

Is it fact? Who knows? Probably. After all, humans don't know everything there is to know. Nor can any sentient creature claim to be truly wise if there is always something new to learn.
Opinions can and do become sayings. This one is an opinion, the opinion of its author (whomever that may be) of what wise men should be like.

linkage (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/deacon.htm)

"Be he a Baptist, Scientologist or Zoroastrian, in the heat of battle Deacon will call down Divine retribution on all net sinners, and will never miss an opportunity to blather endlessly about his religion. Deacon is fervent and earnest, but seldom contributes anything of interest or substance to the discussion. Occasionally Tireless Rebutter or Philosopher will rouse themselves engage Deacon in battle, but they soon lose interest because of his utter predictability."

But..... (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/atheist.htm)


Atheist is Deacon's cyber-doppelganger. Deacon and Atheist hold equally fervent, though diametrically opposed beliefs about religion, and both feel compelled to share those beliefs at every possible opportunity. Should an unsuspecting forum member make even a passing comment about faith or spirituality of any flavor, Atheist will descend like one of the Furies, mercilessly hectoring all of the ignorant and delusional believers about the sordid history of the church and the pernicious effects of religion on society. After a few of Atheist’s anti-religious jeremiads most other Warriors will avoid the subject altogether, though Evil Clown may egg him on a little, and Philosopher may amuse himself by pointing out flaws in his reasoning. If a forum has the misfortune of having both Deacon and Atheist as members, the bickering often continues until Nanny or Admin pulls the plug. Bliss Ninny can also sometimes squelch the conversation by saying, “Well, everyone has a right to their [sic] opinion.”


:rolleyes:

Opinions can and do become sayings. This one is an opinion, the opinion of its author (whomever that may be) of what wise men should be like.

Agreed. That doesn't mean it's any less relevant to defining human nature. In fact, I think it's an extremely accurate observation.

(you know that long-haired dude that Paul condemned).

We already established that the idea of Jesus having long hair is not nessecarly biblical


And if he did, you have to accept that which you WILL not do, which is that Paul was just a guy who was trying to figure out the scripture just like the rest of us. He has no more right to tell me about my connection to Jesus Christ than I have to tell him. All you've shown is that if you torture the data enough you can make it confess to anything.

I have'nt "tortured" the data in any significent fashion. All I have suggested is that the word "judgement" can mean diffrent things in diffrent circumstances, which it obviously can. Paul doesn't ever claim to be as high at any rate as Jesus, and so far you've shown me one contridiction which I have already explained a valid altentive interpretation for. Now you may not agree with that interpretation (that is your choice) but you are unable to dismiss it as flat out "wrong".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and beliefs and no-one has the right to try and impose their own on others.

So am I imposing a belief when I say 2+2=4? I am sorry, but it can be proven that Jesus lived, performed miricles, died by crucifixtion, rose and asscended using the availble historical evidence. I am in no way forcing an opinion by proving it.

We already established that the idea of Jesus having long hair is not nessecarly biblical

The Bible didn't say it so it wasn't so. Do you know anything about males and Jewish culture? Considering we can be certain that if Jesus threw it the face of Jews by cutting his hair (as he did with several Levitical customs) that it would have been mentioned in the Bible (as it was with the Levitical customs), we can reasonably assume that Jesus had long hair even if there was no other evidence. It's far more likely if he DIDN'T have
long hair it would have been mentioned in the Bible.

I have'nt "tortured" the data in any significent fashion. All I have suggested is that the word "judgement" can mean diffrent things in diffrent circumstances, which it obviously can. Paul doesn't ever claim to be as high at any rate as Jesus, and so far you've shown me one contridiction which I have already explained a valid altentive interpretation for. Now you may not agree with that interpretation (that is your choice) but you are unable to dismiss it as flat out "wrong".

Yes, but you don't change meanings in mid-sentence. It's customary to make it clear when one changes meanings not wait for people to make it up 2000 years later.

So am I imposing a belief when I say 2+2=4? I am sorry, but it can be proven that Jesus lived, performed miricles, died by crucifixtion, rose and asscended using the availble historical evidence. I am in no way forcing an opinion by proving it.

You'd be the first person I've ever seen PROVE or even thoroughly support the existence of Jesus without the use of the Bible. I'd be happy to see you do it, since as a Christian I would be thrilled to be able to so myself. Any time you'd like to start. Start with proving he lived. Then we can move into proving he performed miracles and was resurrected using available historical evidence.

So am I imposing a belief when I say 2+2=4? I am sorry, but it can be proven that Jesus lived, performed miricles, died by crucifixtion, rose and asscended using the availble historical evidence. I am in no way forcing an opinion by proving it.
Lol show us emperical evidence for your claim

Thats right

You cant

We live in a paradox...In essence, you can't truely define anything...As for God, I believed in him when I was very young, foolishly believing that he was looking after me, but looking back on all of that, he didn't do anything for me...My childhood was a pretty miserable wreck...But my family made me feel better...God was just...obsolete...

...God was just...obsolete...

Try "is just obsolete".

I relay don’t care about religion I have never bin in a church in my hole life.

Religion is a form of control It basically says if you don’t do this this and that you will burn I hell!

If there was no system of control cause there would be pandemonium

I relay don’t care about religion I have never bin in a church in my hole life.

Religion is a form of control It basically says if you don’t do this this and that you will burn I hell!

If there was no system of control cause there would be pandemoniumGah. Not another freakin' one.

Christianity =/= Religion.

See what you Christians have done to these people?

Well, actually christianity has always been used as a sort of behaviour modification.
It dates back to the "Book of Common Prayer".
This was the first manuscript of the bible, written in english, so that the average commonfolk could read it.
(if they could read at all).

See, before that, the bible was written in Latin, so that only the rich and properly educated could read it.

The "Book of Common Prayer" only contained parts that were deemed "acceptable" to be read by the average slack-jawed yokel.

So, by reading this, and seeing the clear example of how to behave (for Jesus of course, and not the monarchy ;-)...it was all the easier to control ones subjects.

Its no different today, The Pope, or even noted non-catholic ministers quote particular passages to thier congregations to direct the will of the listeners.

How many pastors quote the bible when speaking out about the sins of being homosexual to thier congregations, only to serve thier own conservative ideals?

Remember that Rev, in Georgia recently that told his listeners that anyone who did not support Bush, was a traitor to Jesus, and insisted that those "non-believers" leave his church?

It still happens today.

You'd be the first person I've ever seen PROVE or even thoroughly support the existence of Jesus without the use of the Bible. I'd be happy to see you do it, since as a Christian I would be thrilled to be able to so myself. Any time you'd like to start. Start with proving he lived. Then we can move into proving he performed miracles and was resurrected using available historical evidence.

There are many people that believe you can prove many different things. Thats the interesting thing about empirical evidence, it always comes up with different answers for different people. If you disagree, think about existentialist etc etc.

The problem is that mankind is flawed. We are limited. So with our limited information (no matter how much information you have you will always have limited information = no one knows everything) we make broad statements of absolutes.

The second problem is that mankind has predisposition to certain finding when they do their studies. No man is without beliefs.

Now on one hand you might say "Aha! See you can't prove christianity" but on the other hand your insistance that it's wrong is subject to the same problems.

The fact of the matter is you can't prove the world wasn't created by an all powerful being one minute ago just to test a "what if situation" and he will demolish this world model in 5 minutes. I do this all the time in SIM2 and other simular games.

Perhaps what you should do is instead of insisting that a person can't prove something is try to honestly listen to their proofs and decide for youself. If this all powerful God made you with the ability to think and choose, I certainly have no intentions of taking it away from you but I would ask that you use the ability He gave you.

If you actually wish to think, a good book by a famous intellectual and writer on this subject is C.S.Lewis "Mere Christianity". BTW his story the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is coming out this Christmas as a movie and another intersting fact is that he and J.R.R. Tolkien were friends and professors together at Oxford.

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)


do you realy think people are going to buy these book's when they have already made up their minds?

do you realy think people are going to buy these book's when they have already made up their minds?
I have in the past and have been sory disapointed

Lol show us emperical evidence for your claim

Thats right

You cant

Plato and Aristotle lived in the 400-300 AD periods yet the earliest records of their work we have come from a millenium or so after that time, yet we are willing to accept that they existed and wrote down what they did. Consider now that we have over 5000 manuscripts of the gospels dating between AD 50 and AD 100. I suppose there is also an extreme level of doubt over wether Alexander the great lived at all, when you consider the earliest eveidence about him dates to more than 400 years after his death.

Plato and Aristotle lived in the 400-300 AD periods yet the earliest records of their work we have come from a millenium or so after that time, yet we are willing to accept that they existed and wrote down what they did. Consider now that we have over 5000 manuscripts of the gospels dating between AD 50 and AD 100. I suppose there is also an extreme level of doubt over wether Alexander the great lived at all, when you consider the earliest eveidence about him dates to more than 400 years after his death.


Manuscripts are not proof of anything.

I can have a centuries old manuscript that claims anything, and it means nothing except that the book itself, if not the books contents exist.

I possess a book that claims there is a school of witchcraft in England, wich is run by a kindly old wizard.
It sold more copies last year, than did the Bible.
It too, is likely a work of fiction.

Thing is, we can except that Plato and Aristotle, and Alexander the Great existed, becuase there are so many historical references to indicate them.
Reasonably, most athiests are (or should be) convinced that Jesus existed.
Or at least, a man named Jesus, was executed by the authorities in Rome.

The point is, Plato didnt claim to be God.
Thats why we tend to believe him.

Any text wich makes such claims, and claims to be truth, must be scrutinized to the minute.

Manuscripts are not proof of anything.

I can have a centuries old manuscript that claims anything, and it means nothing except that the book itself, if not the books contents exist.

I possess a book that claims there is a school of witchcraft in England, wich is run by a kindly old wizard.
It sold more copies last year, than did the Bible.
It too, is likely a work of fiction.

Firstly if you check the guiness book of records you will see there is no book that has ever out sold the Bible. Secondly, historical manuscripts are useally taken to be accurate unless there are other documents that are more reliable, proving otherwise. As of yet there is no documentation that discounts Jesus's resurection. Before you say "well obviously as people dont write 'X is still dead'" what you must remember is that the Christians of the time were considered a threat to the authorities (both Jewish and Roman) and so the logical way for the authorities to deal with this threat would be to bring out Jesus's body and prove to them all that he is dead on the Earth. You cannot tell me that with the full resorces of the Roman Empire and the Jewish nation they would have been unable to find the body if it was really here. Thirdly, the manuscripts were written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who had heard and saw Jesus. Those people did not dismiss it as fiction otherwise the early church would not have grown in the fashion it did. Fourthly, the authors of said work were often put in prision because of the message they were spreading. If it was truely fiction, then I think they would have said so when they were imprisioned.


Thing is, we can except that Plato and Aristotle, and Alexander the Great existed, becuase there are so many historical references to indicate them.
Reasonably, most athiests are (or should be) convinced that Jesus existed.
Or at least, a man named Jesus, was executed by the authorities in Rome.

This is my point. There are FAR less historical refences to Alexander the Great doing any of the things he did than there are that Jesus did all the things that he did (miricles, rose from the dead etc).

Firstly if you check the guiness book of records you will see there is no book that has ever out sold the Bible.

I wouldnt be too sure of that.
I remember hearing that the Potter books had outsold the bible for that year.
Im not certain, but it may be worth looking into.
You, or I, may be surprised.
At any rate...its irrevalant.

Secondly, historical manuscripts are useally taken to be accurate unless there are other documents that are more reliable, proving otherwise. As of yet there is no documentation that discounts Jesus's resurection.

Thats a pointless arguement, there arent any besides ones of a religious nature that support it.
In fact, one of its contemporary books, "The Gospel of Thomas", makes no mention of miracles, or his ressurection.
He is reffered to as "Teacher", or "Rabbi".



Before you say "well obviously as people dont write 'X is still dead'" what you must remember is that the Christians of the time were considered a threat to the authorities (both Jewish and Roman) and so the logical way for the authorities to deal with this threat would be to bring out Jesus's body and prove to them all that he is dead on the Earth.

The period of time that Jesus was crucified, the Christians were hardly considered a threat to the Roman Empire.
They were considered a whacko offshoot of the Jewish faith.
By the time Christianity WAS a threat, there would have been no way to find one mans remains, especially after he died decades ago.
Unless he had a gravestone, wich wouldnt have jived with the story of his ressurection, spread by his followers.

You see...even if they had wanted to show his body, it would have been decades later, and more than likely...Jesus' body was carried away by his followers.
"Oh look...theres no body! He must have come back to life!"


You cannot tell me that with the full resorces of the Roman Empire and the Jewish nation they would have been unable to find the body if it was really here.

Both parties would have had no reason to look.
See above.

Thirdly, the manuscripts were written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who had heard and saw Jesus.

The earliest texts seem to date anywhere between 50-100 ad.
Long after his death.


Those people did not dismiss it as fiction otherwise the early church would not have grown in the fashion it did. Fourthly, the authors of said work were often put in prision because of the message they were spreading. If it was truely fiction, then I think they would have said so when they were imprisioned.

Speculation on your part.
How do you know what they would have done?
Either way, the author is a dead man.
What good would have confessing done?



This is my point. There are FAR less historical refences to Alexander the Great doing any of the things he did than there are that Jesus did all the things that he did (miricles, rose from the dead etc).

Incorrect.

There are NO historical accounts of Jesus performing miracles and such, outside of christian texts.
Wich by thier very nature, have no objectivity, and cannot be counted as accurate historical accounts.

try this.

P1) if god existed then he (or she or it) would be the greatest thing
P2) if god did not exist, then he/she/it would not be the greatest thing
therefore) god exists

do you deny that if god existed, he/she/it would be the greatest thing that ever existed
god currently exists in the understanding.
so if he were not to exist, then he would be less great than things that exist both in the understanding and reality
so in order to be the greatest thing, he would have to exist

this is not a great representation of the ontological argument for gods existence. for a better one search on any good search engine for "ontological argument" and "Saint Anselm"

Lol show us emperical evidence for your claim

Thats right

You cant

ummm... if you were only to believe what you could prove by empirical evidence, then you would end up relying on faith (using no evidence). because the very proposition "you should only believe that with empical evidence" is self defeating, and is declared meaningless by its own standards.

Yes, but you don't change meanings in mid-sentence. It's customary to make it clear when one changes meanings not wait for people to make it up 2000 years later.

Lets make some things clear

1. Paul was not expecting his works to be read 2000 years later. It is only by God's will that they are in the Bible

2. Lets just look at what you suppose he is contridicting

Matthew 7:1-2
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Here its quite obvious that Jesus is talking about judging other people, and that you shouldnt be hypocritical in your judgements. What its not saying is not that you cannot judge at all, but if you are going to judge, the flaw you are pointing out must not be present in you. Now the pasage you are talking about as a "contridiction" says

1 Corinthians 2:15-16
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ.

Now what this is talking about is judgements in your own life. God is the one who judges Christians, and they are not under anyone elses judgement. Meaning that in their actions they do not conform to the standards of the world, but to Jesus's. Now it doesnt make sense for him to have been talking about judging others because
A) It contridicts Jesus, which is not something a Christian does
B) It doesnt say others, or mention anything about other people, and about what they are doing.
C) It talks about the mind of Christ, meaning that in our minds we can judge what we are doing by his standards, and his standards were not to judge others in a hypocritical way. The reason that he has the right to judge us is that he is sinnless.

There are other occations where Paul supports Jesus in his saying how we should not judge others.

1 Corinthians 4:3-5
I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God

Firstly, we see a comparison to earlier in the letter where he afirms the fact that he is under God's judgement and not that of man. He then affirms what Jesus said where he says "Judge nothing before the apointed time" and then goes on to say that it is God that ultimately reveals peoples motives and good and evil within them and thus its not us that judges that. James too goes on to support Jesus in his work

James 4:11-12
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

Saying that the law (meaning Jesus's teachings) is wholey against people being judged by other people. James makes it clear, you should not judge your neighbough. And there are many other examples of this in the New Testement

Romans 14:10
You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

James 5:9
Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

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.

About a year ago, I was one of those kids. But then you get to a point that you just can't help but think - there must be a God. You get people who can cut the everyday things down again and again and attribute it to science, but in the end - who created science? If anybody is familiar with the design argument, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. But I can understand and sympathise with those who see bad in the world and wonder why God would let it happen. But my answer to that is that a lot of the problems of the world are our doing. We could help the starving and the homeless. It's you and me that commit murders and rapes, not God. He has given us the world to look after and it is up to us to do that, not blame God when somebody kiddnaps a child.

About a year ago, I was one of those kids. But then you get to a point that you just can't help but think - there must be a God. You get people who can cut the everyday things down again and again and attribute it to science, but in the end - who created science? If anybody is familiar with the design argument, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts. But I can understand and sympathise with those who see bad in the world and wonder why God would let it happen. But my answer to that is that a lot of the problems of the world are our doing. We could help the starving and the homeless. It's you and me that commit murders and rapes, not God. He has given us the world to look after and it is up to us to do that, not blame God when somebody kiddnaps a child.
As far as I know, "the design arguments" have yet to be presented. All we've seen are arguments that attempt to undermine science by having it allow for a Creator to be the cause of reality.

Plato and Aristotle lived in the 400-300 AD periods yet the earliest records of their work we have come from a millenium or so after that time, yet we are willing to accept that they existed and wrote down what they did. Consider now that we have over 5000 manuscripts of the gospels dating between AD 50 and AD 100. I suppose there is also an extreme level of doubt over wether Alexander the great lived at all, when you consider the earliest eveidence about him dates to more than 400 years after his death.
And if you required me to not only adopt a theology much less a lifestyle just on one book about Aristotle I would be questioning his claims as well (not to say that I don’t have reservations about the existence or claims of the worlds of Aristotle but it is less pressing then the requirements of a belief in Jesus)

Lets make some things clear

1. Paul was not expecting his works to be read 2000 years later. It is only by God's will that they are in the Bible

2. Lets just look at what you suppose he is contridicting

Matthew 7:1-2
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Here its quite obvious that Jesus is talking about judging other people, and that you shouldnt be hypocritical in your judgements. What its not saying is not that you cannot judge at all, but if you are going to judge, the flaw you are pointing out must not be present in you. Now the pasage you are talking about as a "contridiction" says

1 Corinthians 2:15-16
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"
But we have the mind of Christ.

Now what this is talking about is judgements in your own life. God is the one who judges Christians, and they are not under anyone elses judgement. Meaning that in their actions they do not conform to the standards of the world, but to Jesus's. Now it doesnt make sense for him to have been talking about judging others because
A) It contridicts Jesus, which is not something a Christian does
B) It doesnt say others, or mention anything about other people, and about what they are doing.
C) It talks about the mind of Christ, meaning that in our minds we can judge what we are doing by his standards, and his standards were not to judge others in a hypocritical way. The reason that he has the right to judge us is that he is sinnless.

There are other occations where Paul supports Jesus in his saying how we should not judge others.

1 Corinthians 4:3-5
I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God

Firstly, we see a comparison to earlier in the letter where he afirms the fact that he is under God's judgement and not that of man. He then affirms what Jesus said where he says "Judge nothing before the apointed time" and then goes on to say that it is God that ultimately reveals peoples motives and good and evil within them and thus its not us that judges that. James too goes on to support Jesus in his work

James 4:11-12
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

Saying that the law (meaning Jesus's teachings) is wholey against people being judged by other people. James makes it clear, you should not judge your neighbough. And there are many other examples of this in the New Testement

Romans 14:10
You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat

Colossians 2:16
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

James 5:9
Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!

So he was either contradicting himself or contradicting Jesus. He was either saying, judge yourself in that first passage and he doesn't judge HIMSELF in the second or he was saying the righteous have the right to judge whoever they want in the first passage, but no one but God judges them and that the righteous will sit in God's judgement in the second passage so they needn't be judge even themselves (which would make for a more consistant message). So which is it? Did he not understand what he himself was saying or did he not understand what Jesus was saying? Or are you going to try and change the meaning of that first passage, AGAIN, so that it will fit into your fantasy that this MAN was infallible. He proves his fallibility in a dozen little ways and a couple of bigs ones. His work deserves to be published as a suppliment of the Bible as does the work of many religious scholars, but it is not divine work. The only work we NEED to be good Christians is the teachings of Christ. If Christ didn't say it, then I'm not following it. Period. I do not follow the word of MAN.

Oh, and the God's will thing is the same thing that every religious group says. Our religious document is infallible because God would never let it be corrupted. Interesting that the teachings of Jesus are included as a base (unchanged) for several different religions that use different religious works as their base, Mormons and Catholics, for example. Why is it that God would let the works be corrupted in that way, but not in this way?

Sounds like a case of I'll believe what I want to believe because if I don't I'll have to stop sounding so righteous.

I noticed you ignored the rest of the post. Typical. "I can't address that argument so I'll just ignore it". It's a debate tactic called dropping arguments and it doesn't show your side as very strong. I also noticed you ignored my post where I asked you to support your assertion that the Jesus that you and I worship has been emperically proven.

There are many people that believe you can prove many different things. Thats the interesting thing about empirical evidence, it always comes up with different answers for different people. If you disagree, think about existentialist etc etc.

The problem is that mankind is flawed. We are limited. So with our limited information (no matter how much information you have you will always have limited information = no one knows everything) we make broad statements of absolutes.

The second problem is that mankind has predisposition to certain finding when they do their studies. No man is without beliefs.

Now on one hand you might say "Aha! See you can't prove christianity" but on the other hand your insistance that it's wrong is subject to the same problems.

The fact of the matter is you can't prove the world wasn't created by an all powerful being one minute ago just to test a "what if situation" and he will demolish this world model in 5 minutes. I do this all the time in SIM2 and other simular games.

Perhaps what you should do is instead of insisting that a person can't prove something is try to honestly listen to their proofs and decide for youself. If this all powerful God made you with the ability to think and choose, I certainly have no intentions of taking it away from you but I would ask that you use the ability He gave you.

If you actually wish to think, a good book by a famous intellectual and writer on this subject is C.S.Lewis "Mere Christianity". BTW his story the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is coming out this Christmas as a movie and another intersting fact is that he and J.R.R. Tolkien were friends and professors together at Oxford.

Lewis is a terrible author on this subject. I read several of his works. They have already been discussed in this thread. I don't even count Lewis as a religious scholar.

And, perhaps, what I did was ask for him to present his evidence rather than make the claim. I didn't insist he couldn't prove it. I insisted that he establish claim before making, which is essentially what your suggesting I do. Perhaps you should read my post BEFORE responding to it.

Back to the point, I would LOVE for someone to show that the existence of Christ can be emperically verified, let alone his divine works.

Plato and Aristotle lived in the 400-300 AD periods yet the earliest records of their work we have come from a millenium or so after that time, yet we are willing to accept that they existed and wrote down what they did. Consider now that we have over 5000 manuscripts of the gospels dating between AD 50 and AD 100. I suppose there is also an extreme level of doubt over wether Alexander the great lived at all, when you consider the earliest eveidence about him dates to more than 400 years after his death.

So if a few thousand years ago we found the stories of Paul Bunyun would that make them true? I mean there must be a few thousand copies of works containing that story.

Also, we look to the works of Plato and Aristotle to study the information contained within, not the people. The philosophies could have been written by a couple of plumbers named Joe and Pablo and no one would care, because the work stands alone. Nobody would ask that you support it if you said you wished to learn from the philosophies of Jesus, but suggesting that he is God in the flesh and that it's been verified, you'll have to do better than only the works of his followers. In fact, the Church even rejected one of those Gospels as fallacious because it didn't adhere to the message they wanted to come across. When you put the evidence together you have little to show that he wasn't just made up. Now, I personally believe that he lived, died and lived again, but you've not shown anything that supports this assertion.

As far as Alexander the great, there is FAR more archeological evidence of the existence of Alexander the Great than there is of Jesus Christ even if you count the Gospels as verification of his existence.

So he was either contradicting himself or contradicting Jesus. He was either saying, judge yourself in that first passage and he doesn't judge HIMSELF in the second or he was saying the righteous have the right to judge whoever they want in the first passage, but no one but God judges them and that the righteous will sit in God's judgement in the second passage so they needn't be judge even themselves (which would make for a more consistant message). So which is it? Did he not understand what he himself was saying or did he not understand what Jesus was saying? Or are you going to try and change the meaning of that first passage, AGAIN, so that it will fit into your fantasy that this MAN was infallible. He proves his fallibility in a dozen little ways and a couple of bigs ones. His work deserves to be published as a suppliment of the Bible as does the work of many religious scholars, but it is not divine work. The only work we NEED to be good Christians is the teachings of Christ. If Christ didn't say it, then I'm not following it. Period. I do not follow the word of MAN.

Oh, and the God's will thing is the same thing that every religious group says. Our religious document is infallible because God would never let it be corrupted. Interesting that the teachings of Jesus are included as a base (unchanged) for several different religions that use different religious works as their base, Mormons and Catholics, for example. Why is it that God would let the works be corrupted in that way, but not in this way?

Sounds like a case of I'll believe what I want to believe because if I don't I'll have to stop sounding so righteous.

Just for clarification:

Most people on these threads make really little or no sense when that argue consistency of the Bible. Even though people claim the Bible is 'inspired by God' it was still written by humans, each in their own time and situation. Paul's situation was very unique from everyone else's. Paul wasn't always preaching to believers and more importantly Jews. He had to make adjustments, many of which I myself disagree, but the point was understood by people he was writing to. Many of these communities were also very 'anti-Christian' when it came to their behavior and beliefs. Paul had to write to make people, who believe hate and promiscuity is the norm, understand that Jesus's teachings were against what they were practicing. Yes, on occasion he 'winged' it and added some fluff, but the way the people received it was exactly along the lines of what Jesus would have wanted.

PS to everyone:

Don't forget that the writings of Paul came before the written gospels.

Just for clarification:

Most people on these threads make really little or no sense when that argue consistency of the Bible. Even though people claim the Bible is 'inspired by God' it was still written by humans, each in their own time and situation. Paul's situation was very unique from everyone else's. Paul wasn't always preaching to believers and more importantly Jews. He had to make adjustments, many of which I myself disagree, but the point was understood by people he was writing to. Many of these communities were also very 'anti-Christian' when it came to their behavior and beliefs. Paul had to write to make people, who believe hate and promiscuity is the norm, understand that Jesus's teachings were against what they were practicing. Yes, on occasion he 'winged' it and added some fluff, but the way the people received it was exactly along the lines of what Jesus would have wanted.

PS to everyone:

Don't forget that the writings of Paul came before the written gospels.

Which makes Paul a religious leader and teacher not a divinely-inspired prophet. Paul's work does not belong in the Bible as I said. On this basis, his work deserves to be published as good works on his understanding of the works. That way people will critically read his work and take the words of Jesus from the Gospels as the most important thing for them to know. I can't stand when I preach the words of Jesus and someone points to the words of Paul as a contradiction to what I said. Whether that person is misunderstanding Paul or not, it wouldn't be so misleading if he was presented as a religious scholar rather than a divine writer.

Which makes Paul a religious leader and teacher not a divinely-inspired prophet. Paul's work does not belong in the Bible as I said. On this basis, his work deserves to be published as good works on his understanding of the works. That way people will critically read his work and take the words of Jesus from the Gospels as the most important thing for them to know. I can't stand when I preach the words of Jesus and someone points to the words of Paul as a contradiction to what I said. Whether that person is misunderstanding Paul or not, it wouldn't be so misleading if he was presented as a religious scholar rather than a divine writer.

I must disagree with you.

Paul's writings have very divinely-inspired thought. His inspiration is just different than everyone before him. 20+ writers before him had been Jews writing to Jews. Paul understood God's messages very well and was more than inspired to write so people who didn't already have an understanding of Judaism would be capable of following Christ. There are still people out there whom the Pauline letters would hold many convictions, you just may not be one of them (I'm not so much either). Whereas Jeremiah begged God to give him the strength to be a prophet, Paul already had that and was asking for inspiration to make them understand. God gave him that and thus his work was inspired by God.

I must disagree with you.

Paul's writings have very divinely-inspired thought. His inspiration is just different than everyone before him. 20+ writers before him had been Jews writing to Jews. Paul understood God's messages very well and was more than inspired to write so people who didn't already have an understanding of Judaism would be capable of following Christ. There are still people out there whom the Pauline letters would hold many convictions, you just may not be one of them (I'm not so much either). Whereas Jeremiah begged God to give him the strength to be a prophet, Paul already had that and was asking for inspiration to make them understand. God gave him that and thus his work was inspired by God.
Or a loony that had a hand in starting a cult

However you wish to look at it :p

Or a loony that had a hand in starting a cult

However you wish to look at it :p

Possibly. I can't argue with that.

But can we criticize someone who had a hand in starting a cult which, in its rightful place, desired peace and community amongst all people?

PS
By original definition, religious organizations are a subclass of cults.

Possibly. I can't argue with that.

But can we criticize someone who had a hand in starting a cult which, in its rightful place, desired peace and community amongst all people?

PS
By original definition, religious organizations are a subclass of cults.
Yes we can … and many have

Yes we can … and many have

So you take pleasure in criticizing people who try to make the world better and more peaceful? Or are you insinuating that you are incapable of overlooking the religious aspect of his writings and see the secular message which he spoke?

So you take pleasure in criticizing people who try to make the world better and more peaceful? Or are you insinuating that you are incapable of overlooking the religious aspect of his writings and see the secular message which he spoke?
Why does pleasure suddenly enter into it?

That rather comes out of left field.