NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I've joined and posted on this forum one of the most popular subjects is the existence of God and His effect or lack of an effect on people and the world. This is not my concern.

I personally am somewhat of an agnostic that leans heavily against the existence of God in my own mind. There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests. It is as follows:

If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

This of course happens to be the stance of a rather famous character that I also consider fictional, Lucifer. It was at first alarming to realize my idealogy coincides directly with that of Satan but it became less so when you separate the myth from the actual act of Satan. Satan (Lucifer) was God's right hand angel who somehow developed the ability to choose not to follow God's absolute rule (somehow a sin). He gathered an army of followers and unfortunately lost to the absolute ruler. Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of God. Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God. Even if this is all a plan of God to weed out dissonants among his followers, who cares? I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear.

/me is glad she doesn't belive in either of those characters.

I personally am somewhat of an agnostic that leans heavily against the existence of God in my own mind.
Choosing doubt as a faith is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation.

/me is glad she doesn't belive in either of those characters.

Neither do I as I stated a few times. It was a hypothetical for Athiests. Thanks for your useless post that ignored the question. :headbang:

Choosing doubt as a faith is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation.

I wish one person could answer a hypothetical question instead of feeding some bullshit two cents that has nothing to do with anything.

P.S. I choose myself as a faith. Not that hard to understand. Faith in imaginary creations is like a six year old leaving cookies for Santa, cute but stupid.

I have always said that even if God existed, I would not bow down to him/her/it no matter what for the very simple reason that our senses of morality differ radically in many areas. The fact that he/she/it demands total obedience lest you be tortured for all eternity is one of these differences. The only way he/she/it would get me to do that would be by forcing me to do so, something which he/she/it doesn't seem particularly inclined to do. In my opinion, being a 'god' is more than just having awesome powers, its how they use those powers that counts.

I have always said that even if God existed, I would not bow down to him/her/it no matter what for the very simple reason that our senses of morality differ radically in many areas. The fact that he/she/it demands total obedience lest you be tortured for all eternity is one of these differences. The only way he/she/it would get me to do that would be by forcing me to do so, something which he/she/it doesn't seem particularly inclined to do. In my opinion, being a 'god' is more than just having awesome powers, its how they use those powers that counts.

Ah, first let me thank you (not just for agreeing with me ;) ) but because you actually read the post and answered it. A task that is apparently extremely difficult. The last part of your post is how I feel as well. It is cowardly(in my opinion) that a God would torture his creations because they won't bow to his unbending will.

It is cowardly(in my opinion) that a God would torture his creations because they won't bow to his unbending will.
Actually, you didn't present a question. It would be classified as a rant.

The Book of Revelations is not to be taken literally. Its a metaphor of the Early Christians and the Roman Empire.

Now, I would like you to try to think about another thing. If God is torturing His creations because they won't bow to His undbending will, why aren't the Satanists screaming in agony? Why aren't atheists dropping like flies? In my opinion, that is clear proof of there being free will.

Choosing doubt as a faith is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation.

Agnosticism is all about not choosing a faith, at least for me, because I think it would be arrogant and incorrect to choose a faith and profess that I know the truth when I patently have no basis for such a claim.

Why do you assume that faith is a automatic necessity - why do you expect that everyone should choose a faith, and try to pigeonhole even agnostics into it?

I think the original poster's got the right idea. Unless whatver deity might exist has a moral code which coincides perfectly with mine (and if any of the standard religions are right, that's not happening - not least on the "eternal punishment for failing to constantly lavish praise upon him/infer his existence from a lack of evidence/choose correctly from a wide range of moral codes all claiming to be divinely inspired" issues), or if it could somehow prove that the ethics it was following and enforcing were objective, impartial, and irrefutably true, rather than just made up at its whim (which would lead me to question whether it was actually omnipotent, given that it would then appear to be bound by this objective ethical code), then I don't think I could truly side with it.

Now, I would like you to try to think about another thing. If God is torturing His creations because they won't bow to His undbending will, why aren't the Satanists screaming in agony? Why aren't atheists dropping like flies? In my opinion, that is clear proof of there being free will.

Isn't that what the Christian hell is for? Torturing people who don't shed their sin by guessing that Christianity and not one of the myriad other religions is right and then praying for forgiveness and thus redemption via Jesus' sacrifice?

I think that people get religion mixed up with God. The complexity of the world in which we live would suggest that there is a supreme power that designed all this, however, it still is a belief. What people do in the name of religion is atrocious and makes most sane people not proud of what is going on. I don’t think that any of the major religions of the world today have come to grips with the modern world. They are still living in the past, some the extreme past. But personally I would like to think that there is something after all this and that we are here for a purpose. Life is a struggle never give up!

The complexity of the world in which we live would suggest that there is a supreme power that designed all this, however, it still is a belief.

More like a guess. Given that we have only one universe we can look at, and we can't tell if there's a designing power, there's absolutely no basis for saying that "such-and-such a level of complexity requires a designer". That's just a gut instinct - as tiny, insignificant, limited humans, we're bound to be awed as we learn more and more about the scale and complexity of the universe.

But personally I would like to think that there is something after all this and that we are here for a purpose.

It would be nice if the answers were this easy, but that doesn't make it true.

Actually, you didn't present a question. It would be classified as a rant.

True there was no direct question. I made the assumption that when I say:

There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests

followed by the "truth about myself" I was talking about people could understand the point of the thread. You've made it blindingly apparent that was a foolish assumption. For your ease I'll try to post questions that can be answered in a simple 'yes' or 'no' from now on.

The Book of Revelations is not to be taken literally. Its a metaphor of the Early Christians and the Roman Empire.
Umm...that is your interpretation. I've already awknowledge that I believe the entire faith is fictional and so the book of Revelations just expands upon fictional characters and events which fits well with my hypothetical question.


Now, I would like you to try to think about another thing. If God is torturing His creations because they won't bow to His undbending will, why aren't the Satanists screaming in agony? Why aren't atheists dropping like flies? In my opinion, that is clear proof of there being free will.
It is very difficult not to just call you an absolute moron and stop right here. My whole post is based on the premise of free will. I even mention it in the post. Without it my hypothetical question can't exist. As for the second half of what you said they are screaming in agony in hell. Last I checked that was the point of hell. I suggest you refrain from getting ass backward drunk before posting replys. At least I hope for your sake you are wasted.

Agnosticism is all about not choosing a faith, at least for me, because I think it would be arrogant and incorrect to choose a faith and profess that I know the truth when I patently have no basis for such a claim.

Why do you assume that faith is a automatic necessity - why do you expect that everyone should choose a faith, and try to pigeonhole even agnostics into it?
I'm a theist. By tradition I'm a Christian. I feel that every religion worships the greater order in the universe their own way, to put it easier, God. Some people would call that agnosticism, but by the definition of the word, agnosticism isn't the inability to choose between faiths. Agnosticism is where peolpe are not sure whether there is or is not a God, a greater being and order that holds the universe together, in other words, the first step towards faith.

Atheists, whether they want to admit it or not, have faith that God doesn't exist.
Theists have faith that God does exist.

I see atheists doing a death bed conversion as they see the light, while agnostics ponder over whether the feeling they are expierencing is due to body failure and other obscure reasons.

I do not think faith is an automatic necessity, that's sticking words in my mouth, or more appropriately, text in my posts. Now, I'm not saying, "Go out and love Jesus!" I've never said that. I went through a period in my life where I was angry at God, and I said I was Agnostic or even Atheist because of it. I wonder if other people have gone through the same thing, as its not easy to talk about exactly. But then I started to calm down, and got settled on the beautiful and essential message of Christianity:

"Love they neighbor as theyself."

It also helps every major religion says the same. But God isn't a religion, God is love and hope. While writing this, Teze said what I was, in essence, going to say:

I think that people get religion mixed up with God...But personally I would like to think that there is something after all this and that we are here for a purpose. Life is a struggle never give up!

To build on that, God isn't an institution, a religion. Man created the institution and all of the jazz about Hell and enternal damnation. But when it comes down to it, change has to come from within the self. And life is a journey we are suppose to learn something from. At the end, we'll all know the same answer.

Again, from another thread, here is my two cents regarding religion and omnipotent gods.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10257404&postcount=51

Again, from another thread, here is my two cents regarding religion and omnipotent gods.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10257404&postcount=51

Again, you didn't answer the thread at all. As far as I saw that post had absolutely nothing to do with the hypothetical presented in the thread. Not much of a reader?

I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests.
You asked. You got it. You didn't mean your words.

Refrain from proposing something, and asking a bilateral response from people, when all you really desire is a group of like minded individuals. You're on a forum, as you well know, where topics are discussed.

Now that I've expressed my opinions, finally, as Jolt didn't die when I clicked "Submit Reply," I can do as Neo Leonstein does.

FLAME ON!

No-one cares, pointless discussion. If he does exist so what? and if he doesnt, so what?
you are all dull

No-one cares, pointless discussion. If he does exist so what? and if he doesnt, so what?
you are all dull

Well the thread isn't about debating existence but thats ok thinking is hard I know. I think MTV made another show about nothing and it is on you might miss some. hurry.

You asked. You got it. You didn't mean your words.

Refrain from proposing something, and asking a bilateral response from people, when all you really desire is a group of like minded individuals. You're on a forum, as you well know, where topics are discussed.

Now that I've expressed my opinions, finally, as Jolt didn't die when I clicked "Submit Reply," I can do as Neo Leonstein does.

FLAME ON!

Actually in context it said:


There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests.


You didn't actually express any opinions on what I was talking about. Just random opinions that were unrelated. I don't know if you think it is normal to just respond randomly to single sentences but usually people take things in context.

By the way typing in large letters doesn't make you smarter.

Oh, the mirth! Like many others, you've been so indoctrinated by your societal religion that you refuse to see how God could exist in any way other than that espoused by said religion even to the point of rebelling against this God rather than evaluating your assumptions! 'tis beautifully Ironic.

The monotheistic faiths of our time, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, have done God a great disservice by putting their own interpretive spin on it. Why on earth would you trust any of them as a source of information about divinity? If God exists, it's certain that none of these ideas are literally completely true.

Another religion thread *dons asbestos suit*. Now that I'm safe from the inevitable flame war, I find all discussions on religion pointless - as people are always trying to 'prove' that God does or does not exist. Since the whole idea of Christianity (and most other religions) is that after you die you go to eternal paradise (or eternal punishment if you're a murderer/satanist/infidel etc. :P), until someone comes back from the dead and tells us if it's true, we have no definitive proof either way. So the flame wars aren't just irritating, there is also no way of settling them.

agnosticism isn't the inability to choose between faiths.

I agree with that.

Agnosticism is where peolpe are not sure whether there is or is not a God

More or less. It can be stronger - i.e. some believe there is no way of knowing whether there is or is not a god.

Atheists, whether they want to admit it or not, have faith that God doesn't exist.
Theists have faith that God does exist.

I agree with this as well (although some people use the word atheist differently, calling agnostics "weak atheists" and the kind of atheist you and I mean "strong atheists" which I suppose is technically valid, given than "atheist" = not theist and agnostics are not theists - but it's a little confusing). So surely it follows that agnostics are people who simply choose not to choose - who don't commit to faith in either assertion?

I do not think faith is an automatic necessity, that's sticking words in my mouth, or more appropriately, text in my posts.

I assumed this because you said "Choosing doubt as a faith is like choosing immobility as a form of transportation." This implies you regard agnosticism as a form of faith, which is, as I have explained above, a view I disagree with. And the fact that you were trying to pigeonhole agnostics, the people furthest from faith, into the concept of a choice of faith, suggested to me that you were making the assumption that everyone makes a faith choice. Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick, but that one-liner perhaps gave the wrong impression of where you were coming from.

Another religion thread *dons asbestos suit*. Now that I'm safe from the inevitable flame war, I find all discussions on religion pointless - as people are always trying to 'prove' that God does or does not exist. Since the whole idea of Christianity (and most other religions) is that after you die you go to eternal paradise (or eternal punishment if you're a murderer/satanist/infidel etc. :P), until someone comes back from the dead and tells us if it's true, we have no definitive proof either way. So the flame wars aren't just irritating, there is also no way of settling them.

That wasn't really the point of this thread. Although the real point has been somewhat lost, it was about, whether or not god exists, whether the kind of god espoused by traditional religions is even worthy of worship.

Again, you didn't answer the thread at all. As far as I saw that post had absolutely nothing to do with the hypothetical presented in the thread. Not much of a reader?
Yeah. Reading is such a pain to me. Must be why I spend all day reading. :rolleyes:

The point is that you are doing an exercise in hypotheticals, presented in a way that really is little more than asking for angry responses from religious people.

You have your freedom to act whatever way you want, god or not. What's the point of playing the martyr for "freedom" from something other people hold dear to them, and proclaiming it loudly for all of them to hear?

Oh, the mirth! Like many others, you've been so indoctrinated by your societal religion that you refuse to see how God could exist in any way other than that espoused by said religion even to the point of rebelling against this God rather than evaluating your assumptions! 'tis beautifully Ironic.

The monotheistic faiths of our time, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, have done God a great disservice by putting their own interpretive spin on it. Why on earth would you trust any of them as a source of information about divinity? If God exists, it's certain that none of these ideas are literally completely true.

Yes that is true I used the Biblical sense of God in my interpretation of what I would do if He did exist. I also blatently made reference to Milton's Paradise Lost as well which no one seemed to pick up on. Of course that is not a religious text. The hypothetical still works just fine though if I interpreted God in a different way (as a force or something Taoistic) the hypothetical wouldn't really make sense. Since I don't actually believe any of it I of course don't ask you to so I don't see why you can't answer how you would feel about it the way I laid it out anyways. So, uh answer.

Yeah. Reading is such a pain to me. Must be why I spend all day reading. :rolleyes:

The point is that you are doing an exercise in hypotheticals, presented in a way that really is little more than asking for angry responses from religious people.

You have your freedom to act whatever way you want, god or not. What's the point of playing the martyr for "freedom" from something other people hold dear to them, and proclaiming it loudly for all of them to hear?

Actually I was more interested in what athiests had to say when I made the post. I said religious people could answer because I thought it would be interesting if they had not thought of that reason for objecting to God before what they felt about it. You don't need to be angry to argue.

Is it so hard to believe I am legitimately wondering if many athiests do not believe in God because they don't see proof and would indeed worship if it was proven He did exist in the Biblical sense? It is not a given that one would burn in Hell rather than worship their creator. Many people have and would willingly serve under a leader that was in pretty much all senses of the word better than them. You are so ready to dismiss the thread because it raises a potentially controversal point that you ignore the valid reason for posting it. As for the reading part, you still didn't answer the post and yes you totally missed the point in your first post and are still off the mark now. Perhaps it is just careful reading that you lack.

Is it so hard to believe I am legitimately wondering if many athiests do not believe in God because they don't see proof and would indeed worship if it was proven He did exist in the Biblical sense?
Well, you know as well as I do that such proof is impossible, thus my note about dealing in hypotheticals.
Would I personally worship anyone? No, I wouldn't. I would rather assume that any god would think like I do, thus making him no more than an extraordinarily powerful person - nothing that would deserve my respect or even worship.
But to be honest, I don't think many religious people would want to worship god if he became a physical entity. It's one thing to ask what amounts to a statue for good luck - standing across from someone and falling on one's knees for worship is another. I don't think modern people have the social conditioning to just do that. Not that it isn't possible...it's been done before, and some still crawl before the Pope. Literally.

But have you not thought of the implications of your question? Do you not equate religious worship with bowing to some tyrannical force, when it really means something completely different to the individual?
Does your question not imply that you are somehow a more "honourable" person for standing up to god, while religious people are submissive and weak-minded?

Surely you can see how this can be interpreted quite negatively. And your name obviously doesn't help.

It is not a given that one would burn in Hell rather than worship their creator.
Indeed, and neither of us has had to make that choice.

It'd be easy for me to say now that I would never submit myself to a man with a gun...but if I ever got into that situation, who could say what I might do?
Claims like these are never to really be taken seriously.

If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

Democracy works under the assumption that all men are created equal. Men are not equal to God. And in Christianity, God did not 'set out' a load of strict rules for people. When he created humans, he did so to live in the way that the rules lay out. Its rather like saying that rules for CD players have very stict instructions as they can only have CD's in them and not Jam Dounguts.

...I can do as Neo Leonstein does.

FLAME ON!
I was flaming? When was I flaming? :(

Ah, thank you. You raise some very good points in regards to my post and the way in which it is presented. I'm not as much of an asshole as I can come off as in my replys I just want people to reply to what I actually say.

Well, you know as well as I do that such proof is impossible, thus my note about dealing in hypotheticals.

agreed it is just that, a hypothetical

But to be honest, I don't think many religious people would want to worship god if he became a physical entity. It's one thing to ask what amounts to a statue for good luck - standing across from someone and falling on one's knees for worship is another. I don't think modern people have the social conditioning to just do that. Not that it isn't possible...it's been done before, and some still crawl before the Pope. Literally.

I didn't actually mean physical just existance in general but that is pretty interesting. How much effect would it have if you could stand across from a living physical manifestation of God instead of an ideal or image. If you take the belief that Jesus was God you can see that it probably would have a large effect on people's will to worship Him.


But have you not thought of the implications of your question? Do you not equate religious worship with bowing to some tyrannical force, when it really means something completely different to the individual?
Does your question not imply that you are somehow a more "honourable" person for standing up to god, while religious people are submissive and weak-minded?
In the Biblical sense worship of God is just that. I didn't make it up just take the story of Jobe as an example. After his trials he questions God and the short paraphrase of what he says in response is "I'm all powerful who are you to think you can even question anything I do ever". It is written into the belief system. This is why I used the biblical version of God in my hypothetical, like you have said He does not need to be like that and thus the hypothetical would not be the same for different interpretations. I wasn't really trying to address those interpretations. I do concede that my post can come off as heavy handed though but as I said what I described is supported in the Bible itself without exaggeration.


Surely you can see how this can be interpreted quite negatively. And your name obviously doesn't help.

Haha, yes that is true I often assume most NSers can't read German and wouldn't translate it although I have noticed there is quite a large amount of German speakers on this forum. I am by no means fluent so it is easy for me to ignore it in my name. But even so if it was Forfania Christian I would expect people to respond objectively as well. I also stated my beliefs in the beginning of the post.

Indeed, and neither of us has had to make that choice.

It'd be easy for me to say now that I would never submit myself to a man with a gun...but if I ever got into that situation, who could say what I might do?
Claims like these are never to really be taken seriously.
That is also a good point but there is a major difference. The biblical God sends you to Hell for denying him before death he does not force you to submit. You make the decision in this life to deny God you do not stand before him and get the option to back down in the face of torture. It would be easier to know He exists and just be stubborn until it is too late(which is pretty much what happens in regards to Hell) than to be tortured and then asked again to submit.

Democracy works under the assumption that all men are created equal. Men are not equal to God. And in Christianity, God did not 'set out' a load of strict rules for people. When he created humans, he did so to live in the way that the rules lay out. Its rather like saying that rules for CD players have very stict instructions as they can only have CD's in them and not Jam Dounguts.

Yes that is how democracy works because we do not want other people to decide who is equal and who is not. So instead we have everyone vote because we hope they will pick the best of us. The truth is we are not all created equal. There are people who are smarter stronger and in pretty much all ways better than others. I say even if I conceded someone was much smarter and better than me I would not want them to dictate what I could or could not do. This applies even if their rules are better for me than my own. Imagine aliens come to Earth and they are unbelievably more powerful and intelligent than humans and they conquer us in 6 minutes then rest for a minute. After that they assign us rules to live by that are not too horrible. I am saying I would still not like it.

It is not at all like a CD player because humans have free will. If your cd player could choose to play doughnuts if it wanted than that would be a different story. Unfortunately that isn't possible. Free will existed even before humans (Lucifer). That comparison does not hold water at all.

Yes that is how democracy works because we do not want other people to decide who is equal and who is not. So instead we have everyone vote because we hope they will pick the best of us. The truth is we are not all created equal. There are people who are smarter stronger and in pretty much all ways better than others. I say even if I conceded someone was much smarter and better than me I would not want them to dictate what I could or could not do. This applies even if their rules are better for me than my own. Imagine aliens come to Earth and they are unbelievably more powerful and intelligent than humans and they conquer us in 6 minutes then rest for a minute. After that they assign us rules to live by that are not too horrible. I am saying I would still not like it.

Whether or not you like it is really an irrelevence. It doesnt change the fact that there is a God, and he has offerd you salvation. Its your job to accept it.


It is not at all like a CD player because humans have free will. If your cd player could choose to play doughnuts if it wanted than that would be a different story. Unfortunately that isn't possible. Free will existed even before humans (Lucifer). That comparison does not hold water at all.

It does hold water. My point was that we can put jam donughts in our CD players if we wish, but that doesnt mean they will work very well. In the same vain, we can sin and rebel against God all we wont, but that doesnt mean that we will have very fruitful lives, or that the world will work very well in general. Gods rules are for our own benefit. In the same way as a legal system in any country.

Whether or not you like it is really an irrelevence. It doesnt change the fact that there is a God, and he has offerd you salvation. Its your job to accept it.

God has offered me Hell or salvation. That is what we call extortion. God extorts love from human beings by threatening torture and I would not want to submit to such a creature. Either that or he bribes them with heaven. Once again not very honorable in my eyes.


It does hold water. My point was that we can put jam donughts in our CD players if we wish, but that doesnt mean they will work very well. In the same vain, we can sin and rebel against God all we wont, but that doesnt mean that we will have very fruitful lives, or that the world will work very well in general. Gods rules are for our own benefit. In the same way as a legal system in any country.
Ah when you explain it further I see what you mean. I strongly disagree though in that a cd player will not work in that situation and I believe people can have very good and fruitful lives without God in them. I also think some believers lead worthless lives. I do see what you are getting at though.

God has offered me Hell or salvation. That is what we call extortion. God extorts love from human beings by threatening torture and I would not want to submit to such a creature. Either that or he bribes them with heaven. Once again not very honorable in my eyes.

There are several things you dont understand here

1. God did not create hell for humans. If you read Matthew 25:41 you see that it was originally created for the Devil and his angels. Human beings go their because they have sinned (IE rebelled against God)

2. God does not "send" people to hell. He only sends them there in the same way that a ten ton weight if you wear one when falling out a plane sends you to the ground. You go there as a result of sin.

3. If God were really the horrible, nasty person that you say he is, then why would he go through all that he went through to give us salvation. If he really doesnt care if we accept it or not, dont you think he wouldnt have bothererd with what he did?


Ah when you explain it further I see what you mean. I strongly disagree though in that a cd player will not work in that situation and I believe people can have very good and fruitful lives without God in them. I also think some believers lead worthless lives. I do see what you are getting at though.

People can obey God, but not be saved. However ulitmately if you ignore God your whole life and ignore what he wants you to do, your life will not be as fufilled as someone who does. Jesus said that he had come so that we may have life and have it to the full.

The hypothetical still works just fine though if I interpreted God in a different way (as a force or something Taoistic) the hypothetical wouldn't really make sense. Since I don't actually believe any of it (I of course don't ask you to), I don't see why you can't answer how you would feel about it the way I laid it out anyways. So, uh answer.
If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.
The way you laid it out is dependent on a strict definition of God. I feel the way you laid it out seems semi-reasonable if, but only if, God is an external authority. I disagree with that fact. God does not rule, nor is it ruled. God is, rather, the universal democracy; the net total of all coexistence within reality, where the web of interacting things, beings and people can be seen for what it is.

The problem is you see yourself as being spiritually repressed, rather like kids in the United Kingdom see themselves as repressed by a democratically elected Government that blows billions on helping them to grow, learn and develop in a secure national environment because some guy makes a fortune out of telling them that over the airwaves.

Ignore the Church. Engage and co-operate with the world and its inhabitants. That is all God needs to be. Rebelling against that is counterproductive.

(Incidentally, you don't live in a democracy if you refuse to "submit" to others as you put it. You live in a Dictatorship of the Self. Democracy is systemic coalition for the greater good; not some tool with which to get what you want. The point is that sometimes we need to make concessions to help others. If you're unwilling to take part in that, then what you are in cannot be said to be Democratic.)

There are several things you dont understand here

1. God did not create hell for humans. If you read Matthew 25:41 you see that it was originally created for the Devil and his angels. Human beings go their because they have sinned (IE rebelled against God)

Wich is awfully conveinent for god, taht we are "all born sinners".
Automatically taking the choice away.

2. God does not "send" people to hell. He only sends them there in the same way that a ten ton weight if you wear one when falling out a plane sends you to the ground. You go there as a result of sin.

Incorrect.
Even if you have never sinned, you wil go to Hell, if you do not accept Jesus.


3. If God were really the horrible, nasty person that you say he is, then why would he go through all that he went through to give us salvation. If he really doesnt care if we accept it or not, dont you think he wouldnt have bothererd with what he did?

Ask the victims of the holocaust how benevolent God is.
Or the people that the Tsunami in Thailand killed.

There are several things you dont understand here

no I understand

1. God did not create hell for humans. If you read Matthew 25:41 you see that it was originally created for the Devil and his angels. Human beings go their because they have sinned (IE rebelled against God)

As I described in my original post.


2. God does not "send" people to hell. He only sends them there in the same way that a ten ton weight if you wear one when falling out a plane sends you to the ground. You go there as a result of sin.

God created hell and the rules the designate a sin and gravity and everything. Thus he most certainly "sends" you there. It is your sin but he decides what is and isn't a sin. Denying Him is a sin.


3. If God were really the horrible, nasty person that you say he is, then why would he go through all that he went through to give us salvation. If he really doesnt care if we accept it or not, dont you think he wouldnt have bothererd with what he did?

I also said in the original post it does not matter to me if he is benevolent. Here is why: A condition of salvation is total submission to God. I don't agree with that.


People can obey God, but not be saved. However ulitmately if you ignore God your whole life and ignore what he wants you to do, your life will not be as fufilled as someone who does. Jesus said that he had come so that we may have life and have it to the full.
Fair enough I see no reason to argue with that.

The way you laid it out is dependent on a strict definition of God. I feel the way you laid it out seems semi-reasonable if, but only if, God is an external authority. I disagree with that fact. God does not rule, nor is it ruled. God is, rather, the universal democracy; the net total of all coexistence within reality, where the web of interacting things, beings and people can be seen for what it is.

Yes, I've said in many posts the hypothetical I've presented is of the Biblical God. What you are describing is different and interesting but it just isn't what I am referring to in this thread.

The problem is you see yourself as being spiritually repressed, rather like kids in the United Kingdom see themselves as repressed by a democratically elected Government that blows billions on helping them to grow, learn and develop in a secure national environment because some guy makes a fortune out of telling them that over the airwaves.

Spiritually repressed? How? I refuse to entirely submit without any question ever to an entity. A government does not usually ask that.


Ignore the Church. Engage and co-operate with the world and its inhabitants. That is all God needs to be. Rebelling against that is counterproductive.

I am not referring to this interpretation of God here. Just the Biblical God in my original post.


(Incidentally, you don't live in a democracy if you refuse to "submit" to others as you put it. You live in a Dictatorship of the Self. Democracy is systemic coalition for the greater good; not some tool with which to get what you want. The point is that sometimes we need to make concessions to help others. If you're unwilling to take part in that, then what you are in cannot be said to be Democratic.)
Yes I live in a Dictatorship of the Self that is exquisitly stated. I view democracy differently than you apparently. To me Democracy is nothing more than a system I can try to manipulate to get what I want. I am for the rights and freedoms of others and their well being as well as my own and so this natually falls into what the greater good is. I only make concessions to others so that in good faith they will make concessions for me. Not many people want to help people who just take and take and never think of giving anything at all. This is how democracy really works. In fact many of the creators of the American system of government understood and strived to create a situation in which the greater good is also what an individual wants. This is the only way that democracy works in modern life. It is not that I don't care about others and donating to charity obviously does not necessarily benefit the individual. But if taxes do not benefit a person you will find they will not want to pay them. Also many people who donate feel they should partly because they would want other people to care if the situation were reversed.

Wich is awfully conveinent for god, taht we are "all born sinners".
Automatically taking the choice away.


Even if you have never sinned, you wil go to Hell, if you do not accept Jesus.


Didn't even think of that in my reply. Good point.

I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear. [/B]
Yeah baby! :D That's how it should be done!

As applies to all of this heaven and hell stuff, I believe that if you're strong enough you can go wherever you want, escaping the cycle nirvana style.

Whether or not you like it is really an irrelevence. It doesnt change the fact that there is a God, and he has offerd you salvation. Its your job to accept it.




why do i need salvation anyway? salvation from what? the same god who is offering me salvation is the same god who condemned me to need salvation. why does he have to complicate it? so that we would need him? so that we would be scared of him? so that we would try to live our lives according to his rules which he pretty much made impossible to completely follow because he created us imperfect. i don't even understand why he gave us free will, since if we exercise this free will and we do something against what he really wants us to do, we're screwed.

why do i need salvation anyway? salvation from what? the same god who is offering me salvation is the same god who condemned me to need salvation. why does he have to complicate it? so that we would need him? so that we would be scared of him? so that we would try to live our lives according to his rules which he pretty much made impossible to completely follow because he created us imperfect. i don't even understand why he gave us free will, since if we exercise this free will and we do something against what he really wants us to do, we're screwed.
Yes! Another person who understands!:D :cool: :D

P.S. Just ignore me, I'm REALLY hyper today.

Yes, I've said in many posts the hypothetical I've presented is of the Biblical God. What you are describing is different and interesting but it just isn't what I am referring to in this thread.
I don't think it is different. I think Christianity and I are focusing on the same entity, trying to describe the same sense of the grand picture, but interpreting it differently. It just happens that their description includes a lot more narrative myth and sociological authority than mine which, in turn, leads to a fixed and obscure belief about the power that everyone takes for granted but nobody can reasonably relate.

Just because one group's idea of God is false doesn't mean the God they claim to represent doesn't exist. If God exists, and Christianity is a human attempt at understanding him, then we shouldn't let the obvious falsity of that attempt distract us from trying to understand what God is. And if that God turns out to be something that is co-operative rather than authoritive, why reject it?

... And don't get me started about American Democracy. That's more an Economic Dictatorship than anything else; all are subservient to the almighty Dollar...

Since I've joined and posted on this forum one of the most popular subjects is the existence of God and His effect or lack of an effect on people and the world. This is not my concern.

I personally am somewhat of an agnostic that leans heavily against the existence of God in my own mind. There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests. It is as follows:

If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

This of course happens to be the stance of a rather famous character that I also consider fictional, Lucifer. It was at first alarming to realize my idealogy coincides directly with that of Satan but it became less so when you separate the myth from the actual act of Satan. Satan (Lucifer) was God's right hand angel who somehow developed the ability to choose not to follow God's absolute rule (somehow a sin). He gathered an army of followers and unfortunately lost to the absolute ruler. Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of God. Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God. Even if this is all a plan of God to weed out dissonants among his followers, who cares? I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear.

Enjoy hell my mate!

People can obey God, but not be saved. However ulitmately if you ignore God your whole life and ignore what he wants you to do, your life will not be as fufilled as someone who does. Jesus said that he had come so that we may have life and have it to the full.

why would it be more fulfilling exactly?

you mean before jesus came, no one had "full lives"? what does that mean exactly?

I don't think it is different. I think Christianity and I are focusing on the same entity, trying to describe the same sense of the grand picture, but interpreting it differently. It just happens that their description includes a lot more narrative myth and sociological authority than mine which, in turn, leads to a fixed and obscure belief about the power that everyone takes for granted but nobody can reasonably relate.

Just because one group's idea of God is false doesn't mean the God they claim to represent doesn't exist. If God exists, and Christianity is a human attempt at understanding him, then we shouldn't let the obvious falsity of that attempt distract us from trying to understand what God is. And if that God turns out to be something that is co-operative rather than authoritive, why reject it?

... And don't get me started about American Democracy. That's more an Economic Dictatorship than anything else; all are subservient to the almighty Dollar...

So God is co-operative meaning what? That I don't have to do what He says or suffer in hell? Alright then I would probably just ignore Him unless he was a real cool guy and we hung out and kicked back a few. This is not Christianity. The hypothetical I've presented is of a God (any God) that demands I submit to his will without question. If you aren't talking about that than we aren't talking about the same thing and you aren't talking about the hypothetical which means you aren't talking about the subject of this thread. Nowhere do I make the assumption that God has to be the Biblical version I described so there is no point to that effect to argue against. If I am misunderstanding you, you will have to be clearer.

Since I've joined ... consequences are. I will not live in fear.[/B]

Cut for time, but I did read it.

You've got to consider, (I'm guessing you've never been religous) the ol' bible verse. I know it sounds corny quoting from the bible, and I agree a lot of it is sometimes drivel, but there are some good bits: The Truth Will Set You Free. The "rules" you speak of are indeed there, but I never, as a religous person (specificaly Christian, but it works with all religions), activley follow them. By definition, if you are a christian you always follow them and it tends to change your life for the better.

As with regards to the whole democratic idea, it's a case of the old caveman "grab what food you can while you can", except it's freedom and power in this case. No-one needs a say in the rules. I know if I did have a say, I wouldn't change it at all.

All I can conclude with is this; if indeed you have never been religous then you've only got half the picture. Being a former-theist-now-being-a-christian, I can see both sides of the fence and can honestly say this is better.

All I can conclude with is this; if indeed you have never been religous then you've only got half the picture. Being a former-theist-now-being-a-christian, I can see both sides of the fence and can honestly say this is better.
Nnarg...Leave me alone.

2. God does not "send" people to hell. He only sends them there in the same way that a ten ton weight if you wear one when falling out a plane sends you to the ground. You go there as a result of sin.

Well, God says that those who did not believe in him are not worthy of an afterlife in his presence. The only place he is not present is in hell. But then, he could simply let the souls of those who did not believe in him cease to exist. That way no sinners would be in heaven, but no one would end up in hell. That would be benevolent. But for some reason, he chooses not to.

If an all powerful god appeared to me and said that I should worship him in all of his glory I still wouldnt believe in it because I couldnt reproduce his appearance in a controlled laboratory setting. If I could summon this god according to my will, then I would believe in it but it wouldnt be worthy of worship as I can summon it.

-Koolkat

My answer to this subject is simple. If their is no God I have just wasted some time and money. If I am right he is screwed.

If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

First your lack of knowledge on the subject frightens me. One should not speak ignorantly on subjects if they can help it.

Second, your do not remember the great council in Heaven!?
You agree and helped form those same rules back in thew pre-existance on heaven. Now you say you did not?

Third, your lack of knowledge sadly will force you into heaven(low4est kningdom not withstanding) since you must have knowledge to blasphame against the Holy Ghost and be sent to Outer Darkness.

This of course happens to be the stance of a rather famous character that I also consider fictional, Lucifer. It was at first alarming to realize my idealogy coincides directly with that of Satan but it became less so when you separate the myth from the actual act of Satan. Satan (Lucifer) was God's right hand angel who somehow developed the ability to choose not to follow God's absolute rule (somehow a sin). He gathered an army of followers and unfortunately lost to the absolute ruler. Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of God.

Please you are butchering the story!
Lucifer wasn't his right hand man just a high level angel.
It was he who put up the alternate plan beside Jesus for us to return to earth.
Heavenly Father gave us a great gift. Life on earth. Gaining mortal bodies like he had. But he had with our help figure out a way to return us to him since we would forget our past life once born.

1. Lucifer wanted us to be robots: have no free will, but try earth out and all make it back. But of course Lucifer wanted all the glory for it.

2. Jesus: Gave all glory to Heavenly Father, wanted us to have free will, we will sin and mess up, but he will atone for our sins so as many as wish can make it back to Heaven.

Ever since Lucifer's plans were not chosen he became jealous and well evil to pit it nicely. Revolted, tried to subjacant Heaven under his rule if he can't be favorite, and continues his plan on us on earth.

Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God. Even if this is all a plan of God to weed out dissonants among his followers, who cares? I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear.
We already had free will. Lucifer is trying to take it away.
Well us who follow God have no fear either..so your last statement is redunant.

My answer to this subject is simple. If their is no God I have just wasted some time and money. If I am right he is screwed.

Well even if God exists odds say you picked the wrong religion.

And heck, you've got nothing to lose if you worship pink invisible clouds as well right. Especially if I tell you bad things will happen if you don't worship them!

So God is co-operative meaning what? That I don't have to do what He says or suffer in hell? Alright then I would probably just ignore Him unless he was a real cool guy and we hung out and kicked back a few. This is not Christianity. The hypothetical I've presented is of a God (any God) that demands I submit to his will without question. If you aren't talking about that than we aren't talking about the same thing and you aren't talking about the hypothetical which means you aren't talking about the subject of this thread. Nowhere do I make the assumption that God has to be the Biblical version I described so there is no point to that effect to argue against. If I am misunderstanding you, you will have to be clearer.
The "hypothetical" is that God demands you to submit to his will. In such a circumstance, you need to know what God is. If God is an individual, then yes, fair enough, rebellion is understood. But God isn't an individual, as I've said. It's not an external authority figure. It is a collective entity which includes yourself; a government of which you are a member.

All submission to the will of God means is acknowledging and working with those around us for the sake of the universal community. I see nothing in that worth rebelling against. But, then again, I don't live in a Dictatorship of Self.

why would it be more fulfilling exactly?

I wont presume to speek for everyone but it ultimately means that you are living your life the way life was meant to be lived. Not just for your own pleasure or self interest the whole time


you mean before jesus came, no one had "full lives"? what does that mean exactly?

Obeying God is what gives you a full life. When Jesus was talking about full life he was refering to two things. Obeying Gods will and the eternal life in heaven. IE he had come to both reveal Gods will to us more fully and so that we could have eternal life in heaven

Well, God says that those who did not believe in him are not worthy of an afterlife in his presence. The only place he is not present is in hell. But then, he could simply let the souls of those who did not believe in him cease to exist. That way no sinners would be in heaven, but no one would end up in hell. That would be benevolent. But for some reason, he chooses not to.

Its because humans have intrinsic value. If you anahilate humans the only positive thing is the end result of them not being consiously aware of the seperation from God. So then your treating people like a means to an end, and not valuable of themselves.

i read the original post but only a select few of the ones after. This may have already been said.

You don't have to follow god to go to heaven. If you lead a good life then you still go to heaven whether you beleive in god or not or whether you beleive in a different religion (it suddenly occured to me you may not be talking about the christian god but just ANY god. but this is the christian god i'm talking about). You could of course argue that by leading a "good" life you are still following him but i see it as more of a "moral" life if such a desciption exists. You don't have to go to church or read the bible but you mustn't kill or steal or do any thing "immoral" or "unethical".

However (and i hate to go back on my own point but there must be praise where praise is due) your point was, what i would describe as enlightening, and not being a tremendously religious person i find it extremely interesting how you envision "satan" and how he doesn't seem quite so evil put in a different light. Though, i hope god isn't as power hungry and greedy as you make out.

Its because humans have intrinsic value. If you anahilate humans the only positive thing is the end result of them not being consiously aware of the seperation from God. So then your treating people like a means to an end, and not valuable of themselves.

I don't think that God would have any advantages from "deleting" their souls, so it wouldn't really be treating them as a means to an end.

Beside, I'm pretty sure those people wouldn't mind. Better to fade away than to burn in hell.

Since I've joined and posted on this forum one of the most popular subjects is the existence of God and His effect or lack of an effect on people and the world. This is not my concern.

I personally am somewhat of an agnostic that leans heavily against the existence of God in my own mind. There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests. It is as follows:

If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

This of course happens to be the stance of a rather famous character that I also consider fictional, Lucifer. It was at first alarming to realize my idealogy coincides directly with that of Satan but it became less so when you separate the myth from the actual act of Satan. Satan (Lucifer) was God's right hand angel who somehow developed the ability to choose not to follow God's absolute rule (somehow a sin). He gathered an army of followers and unfortunately lost to the absolute ruler. Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of God. Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God. Even if this is all a plan of God to weed out dissonants among his followers, who cares? I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear.

Come to think about it... you realy make sence, god in this case opposes what I think is good (freedom and democracy)

why do i need salvation anyway? salvation from what? the same god who is offering me salvation is the same god who condemned me to need salvation. why does he have to complicate it? so that we would need him? so that we would be scared of him? so that we would try to live our lives according to his rules which he pretty much made impossible to completely follow because he created us imperfect. i don't even understand why he gave us free will, since if we exercise this free will and we do something against what he really wants us to do, we're screwed.

The God of the Bible is the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. As the author of everything in existence, including us, he has the right to govern us as he chooses. He is the Sovereign of the Universe.

Free will is the problem. By giving us free will, and not making us obedient robots, we can choose to live any way we wish. We can follow Him or not. And as imperfect beings of limited knowledge, wisdom and intelligence, it is easy to see that our choices may be less than perfect as well. In fact, many of our choices may be destructive to ourselves or others or both.

God permits the consequences of the wrong exercise of free will, just as He permits the consequences of rightly exercising free will. At the end of time, everyone will see which way was the right way. And they will understand His judgement on sin. Sin=disobedience.

You may exercise your free will to choose to do what is right. You do not have to continually do what is not right. And He has given us His instructions about the over-arching principles of life, the universe and everything.

And the answer is not 42. The answer is Jesus Christ. You do not have to do everything perfectly in order to get salvation. You may freely choose to follow the One who is perfect. You may freely choose to give your life to Him. And by doing so, you enter into Life, that is, Eternal Life.

Eternal Life="And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Jesus Christ, John 17:3

Knowing God will mean being "one with Him."

John 17:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


If you want to be perfect, this is the only way. You will still have your free will, but you willingly follow the Holy One, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Just as you willingly obey the laws of the land, drive on the correct side of the street, refrain from smacking people who ask you stupid questions, refrain from raping anyone whom you find attractive---that is all free will, and does that hurt you much?

Proverbs 3:
1 My son, do not forget my law,
But let your heart keep my commands;
2 For length of days and long life
And peace they will add to you.
3 Let not mercy and truth forsake you;
Bind them around your neck,
Write them on the tablet of your heart,
4 And so find favor and high esteem
In the sight of God and man.
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct[a] your paths.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the LORD and depart from evil.
8 It will be health to your flesh,
And strength to your bones.

Or

"Do as thou wilt; that is the whole of the Law."
---Aleister Crowley

Choose your path. :)

I really wish Jesus would have his second coming now so he could END THESE DUMBASS THREADS!

Since I've joined and posted on this forum one of the most popular subjects is the existence of God and His effect or lack of an effect on people and the world. This is not my concern.

I personally am somewhat of an agnostic that leans heavily against the existence of God in my own mind. There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests. It is as follows:

If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

This of course happens to be the stance of a rather famous character that I also consider fictional, Lucifer. It was at first alarming to realize my idealogy coincides directly with that of Satan but it became less so when you separate the myth from the actual act of Satan. Satan (Lucifer) was God's right hand angel who somehow developed the ability to choose not to follow God's absolute rule (somehow a sin). He gathered an army of followers and unfortunately lost to the absolute ruler. Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of God. Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God. Even if this is all a plan of God to weed out dissonants among his followers, who cares? I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear.

I think that asking whether g-d exists is like asking "If I leave this marshmellow on the stick over the fire, will it burn"

At the same time if g-d didn't exist would we?

OF COURSE G-D EXISTS ----!

otherwise you are just being inane locked in a stimulus response paradox, and unless you are wealthy and well liked or atleast happy then your an idiot for disbeleif of a unititing force of all things.

If there was no intermediate to our existance then how could we communicate?

If we dont' communicate where is the room for ethics...

If there is no ethics were are locked in a monotheistic sludge of meaninglessness.

Our morals are based on bring greater wealth to the world or enjoying the paragon of all things good.

If we are to be we then something unites us.. the universe, all reality, the will of the amighty, our guiding force.

We are but angels and together we are the will of g-d.

There are some interesting paradoxes and contradictions to philosophize over.

The world has divisions and difference of symbols. We all have a different veiw of the world, but g-d unites everything and expresses it as our feelings to our state/ our place in reality.

Why deceive yourself?

Just know that we are all equals, but our purpose and meaning may differ in life, unity in our purpose as the will.

It is the surface of our awareness we see what we are meant to see.

It is not that we do not have voice, it is that we have absolute voice as we are one with g-d.

Please you are butchering the story! ... redundant

Ooh, I recognise this one! It's the Mormon one, isn't it? The one that corrected the theological cock-up that was genesis. *g*

As the author of everything in existence, including us, he has the right to govern us as he chooses. He is the Sovereign of the Universe.

Lucky on you for using the word 'author' instead of 'maker' - you effectivly sidestepped the 'does that mean that your parents have the rights to you' argument.


I consider myself an Author of my own little world, rather than any other sort of theist, because of these stories. Stories are supposed to reflect the nature of the characters involved, and really, the Bible does a spectacularly BAD job of that. It's mostly tell, not show, and while there are folk that go for that (and the fact that it's been translated with Proverbs and rules in mind doesn't help), the brighter of us tend to look outside.

I mean, the story in the first post makes us want to side with Lucifer, which isn't the original intent but it damn well sounds like it! XD If The Bible was written by divinely inspired quill-men, then would you really want the one who fed them the words to be the Author of our realility? I dunno about you lot, but to me this seems like a Supremely Bad Idea.

I think that asking whether g-d exists is like asking "If I leave this marshmellow on the stick over the fire, will it burn"

At the same time if g-d didn't exist would we?

OF COURSE G-D EXISTS ----!... It is not that we do not have voice, it is that we have absolute voice as we are one with g-d. I cut the post to save space, but I did read all of it.

I think that the whole basis of your argument rests on the belief that God created the world, but not everyone believes that He did so. By saying that God must exist because we do, you assume that He is the reason for our existence. I don't believe this to be the case. I have no reason to believe that the complexity of the universe, or even the fact that the universe exists, implies a Divine Creator. I hope I am not misunderstanding what you meant to say, and if I have I do apologize.

I personally don't believe in the Christian God. I have problems with a God that I percieve to tell His followers that they must do exactly as He says or else. Again this is my own personal belief.

On a lighter note I find it amusing to read all the posts. I'm not laughing at anyone, I just like reading everyone's ideas on the subject and get a kick out of it.

From a Christian perspective...
If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules.
What's wrong with His rules? The Bible makes it clear that God's rules are fair and He's done everything neccessary within His own rules to offer us a benefit.


I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.
Again, whats the problem? Democracy is only the preferred system because we can't trust a single person to be put in charge because of their inherent corruption. If people were not inherently evil, monarchies and totalitarian governments would work just fine. The God described in the Bible clearly has a deep concern for humans and has nothing to gain by 'oppressing' us.


Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell)
Again, you seem to imply that democracy is inherently the best way to go. Maybe so with corrupt humans but not with God.

Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will


According to the Bible, God is the one that granted us free will, not Satan. If Adam and Eve weren't given free will by God, then how did they ever disobey in the first place?


I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are.
It's your God-given right to choose that.

I will not live in fear.
Amen. I will have no fear because I know God is my friend and is bigger than anything that can destroy me.

In closing, your intense and outright rebellion against the God of the Bible stems from an ignorance of who God is. He is wise and knows what's best. He is loving, which causes Him to actually DO what's best. He is powerful and so there is no point in resisting because sided with Satan against God, you will lose.

Thank you for your random insults. I would like to note that your interpretation of the Bible and understanding of the Jedo-Christian traditions are entirely perverted from what I can see here. That's why I didn't feel the need to actually take your words and answer them, point for point, word for word, until now because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to try to shed some light on them. But I feel like I need to show you what I actually think with things that I can show you.

All following quotes are from Forfania Gottesleugner.

Since I've joined and posted on this forum one of the most popular subjects is the existence of God and His effect or lack of an effect on people and the world. This is not my concern.
Noted. Although I feel that you are a ture agnostic, that can't make up his mind.

I personally am somewhat of an agnostic that leans heavily against the existence of God in my own mind.There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests.
Okay, here you say that you are atheist, however, there is doubt. You also seem to only be angry against the Judeo-Christian God. You invite all people to comment, but later say that you were really only interested in atheists' views.

It is as follows:If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.
From the previous quote, this can also be interpreted as your personal belief system. As your words "There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God," certainly convery that. You've obviously made a decision that God is certainly there, especially when you're speaking of siding with the Devil, who is democratic of all things in your mind. More like a self-serving pig that is only concerned with himself, thus why he left Heaven, his character is one of personal betterment at the cost of others. Parasitic. And somehow raging against the "tyranny of God" is going to make it better? In case you don't like to aknowledge it, God gave us free will, you can accept Him or not.

This of course happens to be the stance of a rather famous character that I also consider fictional, Lucifer.
Now you're saying that the Devil is fictional, and thus including God along with the bunch. So now you're saying that you aren't agnostic, but atheist. And sure about it. Do some soul searching and make up your mind!

It was at first alarming to realize my idealogy coincides directly with that of Satan but it became less so when you separate the myth from the actual act of Satan. Satan (Lucifer) was God's right hand angel who somehow developed the ability to choose not to follow God's absolute rule (somehow a sin). He gathered an army of followers and unfortunately lost to the absolute ruler. Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of God.
Okay, this is where your ideas perversion really shows. Lucifer was not God's right hand man. Your ideas are full of myth and conviences created by none other than yourself, to furture your idea. Lucifer reigns in Hell. He doesn't hold elections. He bosses people around. But you totally ignore the fact that Lucifer chose to fall from Heaven and revolt against God, something the is a clear indicator of free will. You see, angels don't have souls, or equipment (in case you don't understand: penises and vaginas), and thus there existed a jealousy of humanity, who had souls, and who could reproduce without divine intervention. Anyhow, about a constant war and whatnot, that's just a load of tradition created by paranoid members of society, as well as just what a mentioned about the angels, but it seems perfectly fine to use such sources here.

Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God.
Alright, Adam and Eve ate the appel, because it lured Eve to eat it. Thanks Satan for making me have to wear clothes, to work the Earth, to die, to have to have my wife endure pain while giving birth. Thanks a lot! Thanks a whole bunch for giving me the knowledge of "good and evil!"

Nice that you left that out, isn't it? God was certainly oppressing us by saying, "Don't eat those appels! I need someone to oppress!" Is your mother oppressing you if she says, "Don't touch that cookie pan with cookies, its hot!" No, its looking out for your well being.

And this is purely Jewish oral history. Irrelavent, yes, and an explanation of how we got here.

Even if this is all a plan of God to weed out dissonants among his followers, who cares?
That's why He gave His only son's life for us, so we could enjoy eternal happiness in Heaven. So he could root out dissonants, only to forgive them later. Totally logical, and an obvious a form of tyrrany! Christ was in Hell, he burst the gates open, allowing all souls who felt that way to go to Heaven if they felt like it.

I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear.
Thank God for that! He's got a spirtual welfare state all set up for you. You see, you can live a life of hating and denying God, only on your deathbed to convert and because of His love, you can go to Heaven because Christ paid for your sins...nice loophole, eh?

Well, your ideas are unfocoused, and don't make much sense. Later on in the thread, you go off on a tanget that really has nothing to do with your original statement, which is already present in another thread to be honest (about God revealing Himself). My mother always said: "People find the same faults in others that they have in themselves." Now, I was commenting on what I thought, I think your ideas are rubbish, and I instead posted my own ideas.

So surely it follows that agnostics are people who simply choose not to choose - who don't commit to faith in either assertion?
Yes, however, agnostics I feel miss out on the whole picture.

You see, their are countless examples of atheists making death-bed conversions to a faith. I've never seen or heard of people on their death-bed suddenly going, "God doesn't exist!" or, "Wow, I'm not really sure about this whole after-life thing!"

I just think that the idea of fence sitting really cheats them on the whole idea of life: knowing the truth. Agnostics will attempt to define their feelings by anatomical defintions and so forth.

I already feel I know the truth, but that is due to various life experiences that really aren't relevant to this thread.

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick, but that one-liner perhaps gave the wrong impression of where you were coming from.
It garnered reaction from it, which was the true intention. ;)

Alright, Adam and Eve ate the appel, because it lured Eve to eat it. Thanks Satan for making me have to wear clothes, to work the Earth, to die, to have to have my wife endure pain while giving birth. Thanks a lot! Thanks a whole bunch for giving me the knowledge of "good and evil!"

Nice that you left that out, isn't it? God was certainly oppressing us by saying, "Don't eat those appels! I need someone to oppress!" Is your mother oppressing you if she says, "Don't touch that cookie pan with cookies, its hot!" No, its looking out for your well being.

And this is purely Jewish oral history. Irrelavent, yes, and an explanation of how we got here.




Which leads to another question: If God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from that tree, why did he put it there to begin with? Since God is all-knowing, presumably, he would know that Satan was going to tempt them. He basically told someone not to do something, then made sure that they would be encouraged to do it.

Also, God created Satan. He must have known when this happened that Satan would ultimately do what he did. So if he didn't want this, why did he create him to begin with?

2. God does not "send" people to hell. He only sends them there in the same way that a ten ton weight if you wear one when falling out a plane sends you to the ground. You go there as a result of sin.Next time you use that analogy, make it something like "falling out of a boat".

Everybody who falls out of a plane ends up on the ground, one way or another, just marginally faster with a heavy weight (faster terminal velocity) and considerably slower, survivable and less instantaneously painful with a parachute...

Or maybe acceptance of Jesus is an atomic jetpack that keeps you up in the clouds forever.

Anyway, saying it's like falling out of a boat leaves you on the surface if you're not burdened with that weight. Jesus can even be a life-raft and the Glory Of God is the Air/Sea rescue chopper that picks you up after picking up your GPS beacon of belief.

Or something like that, as I'm not a paid-up subscriber to that theory, but perhaps you can modify it to your own requirements. A good analogy is a rare thing ($deity knows I try and fail myself) and I just thought you'd appreciate this (not so) quick idea for improvement...

Since I've joined and posted on this forum one of the most popular subjects is the existence of God and His effect or lack of an effect on people and the world. This is not my concern.

I personally am somewhat of an agnostic that leans heavily against the existence of God in my own mind. There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God. I am interested in what religious members of this forum think as well as the athiests. It is as follows:

If I am wrong and God does exist I would not become religous. Even if this God was, like many religions depict, benevolent, I would still refuse to awknowledge Him. I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

This of course happens to be the stance of a rather famous character that I also consider fictional, Lucifer. It was at first alarming to realize my idealogy coincides directly with that of Satan but it became less so when you separate the myth from the actual act of Satan. Satan (Lucifer) was God's right hand angel who somehow developed the ability to choose not to follow God's absolute rule (somehow a sin). He gathered an army of followers and unfortunately lost to the absolute ruler. Once cast into hell Lucifer conferred with his minions and followers (the only democratic function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of God. Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God. Even if this is all a plan of God to weed out dissonants among his followers, who cares? I personally choose freedom in life and in any existence that follows no matter what the consequences are. I will not live in fear.

For answers to your questions, do a search for my names (Iakeonui and
earlier Iakeokeo and Iakeo).

You posit an incorrect assumption of what God is.

All your conclusions based on this incorrect assumption are therefore
nonsense.

Your basic human drive to not be commanded to do anything against your will
(aka freewill) is a good one.

God does not want for anything. He certainly does not want for anyone
to "obey" him, as he gives no orders.

The "normal" conception of God is that of a creature possessing of a
personality.

God has no personality, because God is not a creature (a thing created).

What you describe is a "god" with a personality, who has wants.

That "god" is nonsense.


-Iakeo

For answers to your questions, do a search for my names (Iakeonui and
earlier Iakeokeo and Iakeo).

You posit an incorrect assumption of what God is.

All your conclusions based on this incorrect assumption are therefore
nonsense.

Your basic human drive to not be commanded to do anything against your will
(aka freewill) is a good one.

God does not want for anything. He certainly does not want for anyone
to "obey" him, as he gives no orders.

The "normal" conception of God is that of a creature possessing of a
personality.

God has no personality, because God is not a creature (a thing created).

What you describe is a "god" with a personality, who has wants.

That "god" is nonsense.


-Iakeo

It is fiction as I stated. Thus making it a hypothetical thus meaning it doesnt' matter if you actually think that is what God is.

I cut the post to save space, but I did read all of it.

I think that the whole basis of your argument rests on the belief that God created the world, but not everyone believes that He did so. By saying that God must exist because we do, you assume that He is the reason for our existence. I don't believe this to be the case. I have no reason to believe that the complexity of the universe, or even the fact that the universe exists, implies a Divine Creator. I hope I am not misunderstanding what you meant to say, and if I have I do apologize.

I personally don't believe in the Christian God. I have problems with a God that I percieve to tell His followers that they must do exactly as He says or else. Again this is my own personal belief.

On a lighter note I find it amusing to read all the posts. I'm not laughing at anyone, I just like reading everyone's ideas on the subject and get a kick out of it.


You are thinking in very 'human terms'. For instance the idea 'he' does not so much apply.
I never said he is the reason for our existance it would more so be 'g-d is our existance'

No reason to apologize it takes allot to get to me, like dying can piss me off, but that gives me a reason to do something I geuss. I havn't died from your post so no worries. The g-d I am speaking about is 'the' g-d. To apply cultroreligious catagorizations does not do justice to a universal and nameless identity. It applies to everything.

I would like to note that your interpretation of the Bible and understanding of the Jedo-Christian traditions are entirely perverted from what I can see here. That's why I didn't feel the need to actually take your words and answer them, point for point, word for word, until now because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm going to try to shed some light on them. But I feel like I need to show you what I actually think with things that I can show you.

Ah you finally step up and make an actually argument. Good for you. Now lets dismantle it.


Noted. Although I feel that you are a ture agnostic, that can't make up his mind.


Okay, here you say that you are atheist, however, there is doubt. You also seem to only be angry against the Judeo-Christian God. You invite all people to comment, but later say that you were really only interested in atheists' views.


I never said I was an athiest. I said I was an agnostic that leans heavily towards atheism; that is still agnostic. I am agnostic because I would rather debate and argue with someone over their beliefs than just dismiss them. I use strong words but am not angry, there is a very large difference. I am not angry at an idea just defiant.


From the previous quote, this can also be interpreted as your personal belief system. As your words "There is a truth that I know about myself that I want to convey to the forum beyond the endless debate over the existence of God," certainly convery that. You've obviously made a decision that God is certainly there, especially when you're speaking of siding with the Devil, who is democratic of all things in your mind. More like a self-serving pig that is only concerned with himself, thus why he left Heaven, his character is one of personal betterment at the cost of others. Parasitic. And somehow raging against the "tyranny of God" is going to make it better? In case you don't like to aknowledge it, God gave us free will, you can accept Him or not.


It is a hypothetical so it is not a decision at all. I wanted to convey a point that requires the existence of God so I created Him hypothetically. This changes none of my beliefs. I wanted to debate something about religion and God other than mere existence.


Now you're saying that the Devil is fictional, and thus including God along with the bunch. So now you're saying that you aren't agnostic, but atheist. And sure about it. Do some soul searching and make up your mind!


I always awknowledged that I thought God and the Devil were fictional. The reason I consider myself agnostic is because, while I don't believe there is a God, I am not prepared to entirely shoot it down without proof. I function largely on proof and just as God cannot be proven to exist he cannot be proven to be non-existent either. This means that I will not deny the possibility of existence even though I personally do not believe. That would be even more arrogant than I am willing to be. It does not change my atheist personal beliefs though.


Okay, this is where your ideas perversion really shows. Lucifer was not God's right hand man. Your ideas are full of myth and conviences created by none other than yourself, to furture your idea. Lucifer reigns in Hell. He doesn't hold elections. He bosses people around. But you totally ignore the fact that Lucifer chose to fall from Heaven and revolt against God, something the is a clear indicator of free will. You see, angels don't have souls, or equipment (in case you don't understand: penises and vaginas), and thus there existed a jealousy of humanity, who had souls, and who could reproduce without divine intervention. Anyhow, about a constant war and whatnot, that's just a load of tradition created by paranoid members of society, as well as just what a mentioned about the angels, but it seems perfectly fine to use such sources here.

Lucifer being "a right hand man" may be an overstatement, alright. As for "just a load of tradition created by paranoid members of society" that can be applied to all religion. I took my version of events from written sources that are not my own to form a version of the events of the Fall and after that is still largely excepted by many. Dissagreeing with it is fine (as well as pointing out things like Lucifer not being a right hand man). If you don't like the hypothetical I set up you can post your version and explain simply why it changes the conclusions I drew from my version. You've posted a slightly different version but I don't see how it affects my main point. If there is a Hell and you must submit and hold faith in God to avoid it I don't feel God is something I would want to follow. Submission should not be a requirement for salvation. How does your version change this.


Alright, Adam and Eve ate the appel, because it lured Eve to eat it. Thanks Satan for making me have to wear clothes, to work the Earth, to die, to have to have my wife endure pain while giving birth. Thanks a lot! Thanks a whole bunch for giving me the knowledge of "good and evil!"

My whole point is I would rather suffer than be denied the will to do what I want. You can't choose if you don't even know good and evil. So yes, thank you Satan.

Nice that you left that out, isn't it? God was certainly oppressing us by saying, "Don't eat those appels! I need someone to oppress!" Is your mother oppressing you if she says, "Don't touch that cookie pan with cookies, its hot!" No, its looking out for your well being.

I didn't state it because I didn't want to write a novel in the first post. I assumed most people answering would know the result of eating the apple. Little kids always try to touch the pan. It is our nature to test things for ourselves instead of being force-fed how to live. I choose to touch the pan to see if my mother is lying or not and accept the consequences.


And this is purely Jewish oral history. Irrelavent, yes, and an explanation of how we got here.

That's why He gave His only son's life for us, so we could enjoy eternal happiness in Heaven. So he could root out dissonants, only to forgive them later. Totally logical, and an obvious a form of tyrrany! Christ was in Hell, he burst the gates open, allowing all souls who felt that way to go to Heaven if they felt like it.

God forgives you for a sin you never personally comitted (original sin). Wow what a nice guy. Denying God's rule is a sin that is not forgiven without submission in the Biblical version of God we are addressing, that doesn't sound very forgiving. We had eternal happiness and he cast us out for breaking His rules and then when he was done being angry allowed certain people who would submit to him back in. Again, what a fantastic God that is. Sounds like he keeps out dissonants to me.


Thank God for that! He's got a spirtual welfare state all set up for you. You see, you can live a life of hating and denying God, only on your deathbed to convert and because of His love, you can go to Heaven because Christ paid for your sins...nice loophole, eh?

Yea it could be worse. Either way you must submit and worship him at some point to avoid suffering in Hell.

Well, your ideas are unfocoused, and don't make much sense. Later on in the thread, you go off on a tanget that really has nothing to do with your original statement, which is already present in another thread to be honest (about God revealing Himself). My mother always said: "People find the same faults in others that they have in themselves." Now, I was commenting on what I thought, I think your ideas are rubbish, and I instead posted my own ideas.
They look pretty easy to understand to me. I disect other posts point by point I don't see how to be clearer. I believe the tangent you are talking about was within a post that was in response to someone else. That someone brought up God revealing Himself physically and I thought it was an interesting thought. I stated this and made a small comment and then resumed talking about the next point of their reply as I usually do. That is called a point by point analysis of what is said not a tangent. It seems you can't reply to me without taking something I've said out of context.

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
For answers to your questions, do a search for my names (Iakeonui and
earlier Iakeokeo and Iakeo).

You posit an incorrect assumption of what God is.

All your conclusions based on this incorrect assumption are therefore
nonsense.

Your basic human drive to not be commanded to do anything against your will
(aka freewill) is a good one.

God does not want for anything. He certainly does not want for anyone
to "obey" him, as he gives no orders.

The "normal" conception of God is that of a creature possessing of a
personality.

God has no personality, because God is not a creature (a thing created).

What you describe is a "god" with a personality, who has wants.

That "god" is nonsense.


-Iakeo

It is fiction as I stated. Thus making it a hypothetical thus meaning it doesnt' matter if you actually think that is what God is.

God is not fiction. God is real. (Simple declarative statement. One taken by
me and others as axiomatic. Period. Don't argue this point, as it's pointless to
do so. Argue the ramifications, not the axiom.)

Your "conception" of God is indeed fiction,.. but your conception of God has
nothing to do with and no effect on God or those who believe in God.

Your contention was (is) that even if God WERE real, as the authoritarian
bully you posit, you'd still not bow to him,.. which I congratulate you on
immensely..!!

But if God isn't the authoritarian bully, and is in fact not in the least
interested (he has no interests) in how you behave or believe, yet will do
everything he can (passively via "nature") to steer you toward understanding
how to behave (belief/faith-in-belief/act-in-faith) in the world, how would
you deal with that realization?

-Iakeo

You are thinking in very 'human terms'. For instance the idea 'he' does not so much apply.
I never said he is the reason for our existance it would more so be 'g-d is our existance'

No reason to apologize it takes allot to get to me, like dying can piss me off, but that gives me a reason to do something I geuss. I havn't died from your post so no worries. The g-d I am speaking about is 'the' g-d. To apply cultroreligious catagorizations does not do justice to a universal and nameless identity. It applies to everything.


WOW..!!

I'm not alone. How nice. :)

And I use "he" for the pronoun simply because I choose to, and for
the "irritation factor" it promotes in atheists,.. and her-theists.


-Iakeo

I really wish Jesus would have his second coming now so he could END THESE DUMBASS THREADS!
I think I love you.

Honestly, you guys don't get a single fucking thing about religion, do you?

If you're taking it literally, you're stupid for ignoring the message it conveys.

Christianity's message isn't "Obey God the big heavenly bully or you'll go to hell, lol", it's what's given to us in the New Testament.

Love your neighbor, be a decent person. Good stuff like that.

The originator of this thread seems to have gotten lost in translation. This aside, the books in the Bible do not have pinpoint accuracy as they weren't written as the events were happening. They were written years later and even the Roman Catholic Church acknowleges that the ancients who penned the texts had the equivalent of creative license to make things more interesting to the reader. It is, after all, the equivalent of a history book, which is why most Old Testament texts are contained within the Christian Bible- it explains how and why the events that occurred in the New Testament did.

And if you're gonna go with the banal argument, at least make sure you know Christianity well enough to argue it well.

Buddy, I've spent about eight years studying it and you do not pose a good argument because your grasp on the mythological elements of it is as about as strong as David Spade's kung fu grip.

Humans are supposedly the linch pin in the next battle and this is why Lucifer helped us gain free will from the oppressive nature of God so we can then choose to denounce the total oppression of God.

Lucifer didn't give us free will, God did in creating us. Just because Lucifer went against God doesn't mean he created free will. It was always there.

I refuse to submit to the will of an all powerful tyrant that not only sets out strict rules for His subjects but also refuses to afford them any say in these rules. I live in a democracy (that could be more democratic) and refuse to submit to others if at all avoidable in my normal life and this stance does not change in any eternal life that may follow. I would rather burn in hell than submit to the iron fist of a heavenly and absolute ruler.

First off, because God is smarter than you, if you don't like the way he does things, then the problem is obviously on your end. Your say is flawed because God is so magnificently intelligent that your opinion would actually be a detriment to the rules.

Second, if he wanted you to follow his will without question, he wouldn't give you free will.

Third, the rules are strict but they're common sense. You could go against his rules, but that would make you a douchebag because the vast majority of his rules are against things that are actually bad. Have you read the Ten Commandments? New Testament? Sure, violate the Ten Commandments. That will get you in a fuckton of legal trouble. But, if you wanna be Mr. Awesome Rebel Against the Man, feel free to go out and kill a man, committ adultery, steal some stuff, lie about it all. It's your choice, after all.

And guess who gave you the choice in the first place? God.

Thing is, if you reject God and live a wholesome and not mind-bendingly evil life, God won't damn you to the fiery reaches. I'm not saying you'll go to heaven, but you certainly won't BURN. If you've not come to know God by no fault of your own, you can go to heaven if you've lived a wholesome life.

I'm not talking about NO sins. No one is perfect. If you kill a man and you're wholly sorry, you'll be forgiven. If you did it to perserve your own life, you'll be forgiven. There are no absolutes in any law, and God's are no different.

And an aside: for an action to be a sin it must be a serious matter, you must do it of your own free will and you must know it is wrong.

Punishment for wrongdoings isn't theological. It's naturally occuring. Hammurabi's code, for instance, didn't come out of the Bible. It came out of his head. Law is a naturally occuring thing in human politics. For all you know, the Hassidics could have been justifying their code of laws by claiming divine origin.

If you want to assume God DOES exist, consider this. Violating a great deal of God's laws are either douchebaggy or illegal.

I don't know if you'll care, or even if your still reading this thread, but man, eternity is a long time to exist with that decision in hell, if that's really where you want to go. Hating God just for your love of democracy is not going to help you, not going to help anyone who listens to you, not going to help God because He doesn't just get kicks out of sending people to hell forever, and not going to help Jesus because, you know what, it doesn't matter how much you hate the idea, (If you do of course, you never specified anything about Christ after all)He still doesn't want you go to Hell. And for what, the ideology that democracy is the crowning achievement of all awareness and that anything other than that is an affront to your personal beliefs? If I were to ask you to sell both your eyes for $100,000 and then you would get fake ones which just sit there in your eye socket and do nothing, would you do it? Hopefully not. Then why sell your eternal existance for nothing but an ideology that says that democracy is worth making an infinite losing situation for everyone? Many people have made some good points in this thread already, but just so I can add a little something, when you say you don't want to live under the "Iron fist" of a heavenly and absolute ruler, what makes you so sure His rule is so horrible, besides that you don't like the idea that God sets all the rules because He is perfect?

I don't know if you'll care, or even if your still reading this thread, but man, eternity is a long time to exist with that decision in hell, if that's really where you want to go. Hating God just for your love of democracy is not going to help you, not going to help anyone who listens to you, not going to help God because He doesn't just get kicks out of sending people to hell forever, and not going to help Jesus because, you know what, it doesn't matter how much you hate the idea, (If you do of course, you never specified anything about Christ after all)He still doesn't want you go to Hell. And for what, the ideology that democracy is the crowning achievement of all awareness and that anything other than that is an affront to your personal beliefs? If I were to ask you to sell both your eyes for $100,000 and then you would get fake ones which just sit there in your eye socket and do nothing, would you do it? Hopefully not. Then why sell your eternal existance for nothing but an ideology that says that democracy is worth making an infinite losing situation for everyone? Many people have made some good points in this thread already, but just so I can add a little something, when you say you don't want to live under the "Iron fist" of a heavenly and absolute ruler, what makes you so sure His rule is so horrible, besides that you don't like the idea that God sets all the rules because He is perfect?

A-men, brother!

Everyone seems to assume that there is an afterlife at all. I don't like that.

There is just one question that had bugged me in reading this thread. I believe it struck me most with a comment made about "a loophole"...

In many common offshoots of christianity, it is often said that those who do not follow the word of the lord, who do not accept him into his heart as the one and only true God are doomed to remain outside the gates of heaven.

In differing opinions this can be either interpreted as tool of oppression or extortion, or as a gift, a sort of promise made to men in order to have them better their ways and life good clean lives.

Now, my question is, and I´ve had this one for a long time (I ´ve even had long discussions with jehovah´s witnesses, evangelists and other assorted believers): let´s suppose someone, some person (we´ll make her a she) has a heart of gold, cares for her fellow men and women, always tries her best to make the world a better place for people in general. Now this person, even though she is truly good at heart, doesn´t believe in God the way perscribed or told in many christian myths. She has seen much suffering and death and pain, and this had led her to believe from a very early age that God must either be non-existant or not entirely Good in the largest sense of the word.

Now this person dies suddenly.

According to many believers I have talked to, this woman will certainly be cast into hell, oblivion, limbo or purgatory, depending on the exact strain of faith.

And this is what bugs me, would a God who is said to be benevolent and fair be so short-sighted and petty as to judge harshly over those who have done many good things, but simply not in his/her/it´s name?

If it is free will men and women are given, if it is in our power to act as we would, to do either bad or good, what meaning would such a judgement after life lay upon that will, said to be free.

As Bill Hicks once said: "The message is, that eternal hell and suffering await all those who question God´s infinite love?"

*snip*
I think we're pretty much on the same page, at least in some ways. I don't particularly care if there "really" is or is not a God. Or gods. Or spirits. Or fairies. I believe that, due to the limitations of my human self, I will--by definition--never be able to have knowledge of the supernatural, and therefore it is uninteresting to me. If you believe in fairies or magical paternal figures then that's super for you, but I'm not the least bit interested in falling back on such cliches.

And this is what bugs me, would a God who is said to be benevolent and fair be so short-sighted and petty as to judge harshly over those who have done many good things, but simply not in his/her/it´s name?And this also leads to the arguments against missionaries.

Quite a few 'generous' interpreters of the whole "who is damned?" question would state that benighted savages, who have never known of God (by standards of the missionaries) yet are not bad, get a 'by' into Heaven (because, unlike in law, ignorance is apparently a defence). But then the darned missionaries go to them, tell them about God and (now not ignorant) they now have to be absolutely pious or else go to The Other Place.

I agree. No matter how benevolent God may be, I'd say freedom is more important. Without it, there is no dignity or real worth. Eternity in a world without any suffering with members of the Religious Right just wouldn't be interesting to me. Eternal suffering doesn't sound too fun, but it would keep me from getting complacent and I would get to debate Nietzsche and so on.

I agree. No matter how benevolent God may be, I'd say freedom is more importantWithout it, there is no dignity or real worth.

God does give you the freedom to act as you wish. What he doesn't give you the freedom of is consequence. You cannot avoid the consequence of your actions. If God were not interested in Freedom, he would not have sent Jesus to die for us. Jesus's death gives us freedom from sin.

In my eyes the concept of god as written by man is inherently flawed and contradictory. Even the seven deadly sins, which are "bad", have man's greatest strengths: Pride, Ambition(greed), Vindication(wrath), etc.

To sum things up if god does exist and is omnipotent then the texts written by man are incorrect and nothing more than philosophy. In truth, the only thing I can be sure of is that we do not know the truth and perhaps never will. But if god will not defend and stand with us for the time being then we must become self reliant and stand alone until god reveals itself outside of man made scripture. Hence my agnosticsm.

I think I love you.

Honestly, you guys don't get a single fucking thing about religion, do you?*snip*
Love the handle.

I have learned a lot in these discussion, not about God or god or g-d, as they are not what's important in the discussions, but about the people who believe in deity and those who don't, and the different ways in which deity can be understood.

It's all good.

Welcome to the forums.

Do not you realize that if GOD were to exist, and I fervently believe he does, that he created democracy? And so, without HIM there is no freedom, because it wouldn't exist?

God does give you the freedom to act as you wish. What he doesn't give you the freedom of is consequence. You cannot avoid the consequence of your actions. If God were not interested in Freedom, he would not have sent Jesus to die for us. Jesus's death gives us freedom from sin.

AMEN!!!

God does give you the freedom to act as you wish. What he doesn't give you the freedom of is consequence. You cannot avoid the consequence of your actions. If God were not interested in Freedom, he would not have sent Jesus to die for us. Jesus's death gives us freedom from sin.
Consequence is free (i.e. not predetermined). What you mean is that actions are not consequence-free.

Do not you realize that if GOD were to exist, and I fervently believe he does, that he created democracy? And so, without HIM there is no freedom, because it wouldn't exist?
Give humans credit for something. :)

And I use "he" for the pronoun simply because I choose to, and for
the "irritation factor" it promotes in atheists,.. and her-theists.

Ha! Part of the reason I use 'she' (apart from my obvious superiority complex) is to annoy he-theists and the atheists who get pissy about other people getting pissy about pronouns. ^_^

Have you read the Ten Commandments?

Last I checked, respecting your parents and worshipping Yahweh aren't law in either of our countries. -_-

Since I've joined and posted on this forum one of the most popular subjects is the existence of God and His effect or lack of an effect on people and the world. This is not my concern.
function among God's angellic creations takes place in hell) and he decided to continue his fight against the absolute rule of ..... [/B]
I think if he did exist weather or not you wanted to acknowledge him would be a moot point, as he would simply take control of you ;)

There is just one question that had bugged me in reading this thread. I believe it struck me most with a comment made about "a loophole"...

In many common offshoots of christianity, it is often said that those who do not follow the word of the lord, who do not accept him into his heart as the one and only true God are doomed to remain outside the gates of heaven.

In differing opinions this can be either interpreted as tool of oppression or extortion, or as a gift, a sort of promise made to men in order to have them better their ways and life good clean lives.

Now, my question is, and I´ve had this one for a long time (I ´ve even had long discussions with jehovah´s witnesses, evangelists and other assorted believers): let´s suppose someone, some person (we´ll make her a she) has a heart of gold, cares for her fellow men and women, always tries her best to make the world a better place for people in general. Now this person, even though she is truly good at heart, doesn´t believe in God the way perscribed or told in many christian myths. She has seen much suffering and death and pain, and this had led her to believe from a very early age that God must either be non-existant or not entirely Good in the largest sense of the word.

Now this person dies suddenly.

According to many believers I have talked to, this woman will certainly be cast into hell, oblivion, limbo or purgatory, depending on the exact strain of faith.

And this is what bugs me, would a God who is said to be benevolent and fair be so short-sighted and petty as to judge harshly over those who have done many good things, but simply not in his/her/it´s name?

If it is free will men and women are given, if it is in our power to act as we would, to do either bad or good, what meaning would such a judgement after life lay upon that will, said to be free.

As Bill Hicks once said: "The message is, that eternal hell and suffering await all those who question God´s infinite love?"

If that hypothetical person you've described is compleatly good,(Which is what the situation you seem to be describing suggests) then an infinitely just God could not send such a person to hell, it would be like a judge saying "I can see you haven't commited a single crime or done anything wrong your entire life. To the electric chair with ye!". However, there is no real-life person with the qualities you suggest, because the only person who does somewhat fit that description was a man, not a woman, and He was called Jesus Christ. Think about it, in your example, are you saying this hypothetical lady has never lied, stolen, used God's name like a cuss word or even flippantly, never been fooled by cults that aren't even close to Christian that spout made up nonsense about God and lead people away from the real God, (As in, never stopped loving the real God) never once tried to think of God as something he wasn't, (mental idoltary) never once rebelled against her parents unless their orders were contradictory to an order in the Bible, (Obeying Jesus is the best way to demonstrate love for Him; and those who love their parents more than God cannot enter heaven) never been greedy and coveted something even once, never killed someone, etc. etc. so on and so forth? Sounds like a pretty tall order of a hypothetical lady.

And on the last point about a God who overlooks good being petty, let me pose my own hypothetical situation to ponder over; lets say you had a murderer who had killed 6 people, and didn't get caught for 20 years. During these 20 years, he helps build 15 houses for habitat for humanity, donated thousands of dollars for tsunami relief and pakistan earthquake relief, stopped a terrorist attack, and when he was finally caught, polished the cars of everyone in the parking lot of the courthouse. If, hypothetically speaking, this judge were to pass sentence on this guy for those murders 20 years ago, could he let him off and still be considered just? At best, if he was just and used the law that people have made up, he could give such a person some clemency for doing good things and showing he isn't really a probable threat anymore, but if the judge wants to still be just, he cannot just let the person go. But then we take God, a judge who is perfectly just and cannot surrender this quality one single bit, and cannot therefore just go say to some made-up person who's died "I see you've lied 3,586 times in your life, coveted 351 times, stolen things 4 times, commited adultery of the heart 567 times, pushed a kid down some stairs 3 times, breaking his legs, commited PHYSICAL adultery 6 times, and what's this, you used my name as a cuss word 6,578 times? That's downright hurtful! Ah well, that's eternal existance for ya, who am I to say what's right and wrong? Come on in to heaven!", that wouldn't be just at all. It's Christ who made it so that this justice wouldn't get every single person in the world heading for Hell, and think about it, that's alot of justice to soak up. More than enough to call His sacrifice an act of love, not an act of blackmail.

There is just one question ....those who question God´s infinite love?"

Decide for yourself, would you send them to hell for who they are?

Inquisition anyone? Inquisitioners Inquistion anyone ?? etc..

Follow your heart. Have peace and faith in the truth of the will.

It will be your choice for yourself just like it is their choice.

If you are to say you choose their life then you are responsible for the answer. We should be responsible for ourself as everything and in that act for the best of ourselves and everything, everyone in what each thing means to us and integrate if for increase of wealth and value. Not just a dollar value or material value but the value of the thought everlasting, as it will shape the wealth we enjoy ongoing in our thought, and confidence in beleif of our actions is essential.
imo

It seems as though a there is space in the justice system for the good countering the bad, such as parole or time off for good behavior, or even "your honor, my client is an upstanding member of the community, part of three charitable boards, and volunteers at the soup kitchen. I therefore request probation for my client." In addition not all crimes get life sentences. They vary based on severity. Therefore a just god should say, "Well you lied 3765 times, cheated at games 573 times, committed adultery once, and cheated on your taxes regularly. But, you also were made someone feel good without realizing you did it 103,985 times, kept someone from making dumb mistakes 659 times, and generally helped others millions of times. Your balance is positive, enjoy the afterlife."

It seems as though a there is space in the justice system for the good countering the bad, such as parole or time off for good behavior, or even "your honor, my client is an upstanding member of the community, part of three charitable boards, and volunteers at the soup kitchen. I therefore request probation for my client." In addition not all crimes get life sentences. They vary based on severity. Therefore a just god should say, "Well you lied 3765 times, cheated at games 573 times, committed adultery once, and cheated on your taxes regularly. But, you also were made someone feel good without realizing you did it 103,985 times, kept someone from making dumb mistakes 659 times, and generally helped others millions of times. Your balance is positive, enjoy the afterlife."

But that justice system is man's justice system, and for good reason, we cannot determine true intent, sinfulness of someone's crime, just exactly how much evil that really is, etc. etc., but God can. Our justice system cannot be infinititly just, so of course there needs to be leniency since we can never be compleatly sure on things, (Even DNA testing has, what, a 1 in ten billion chance of being wrong?) this is one of the reasons we were told to forgive other's in the Bible in the first place, because we cannot be compleatly sure and thusly cannot really judge anything compleatly fairly, and technically cannot compleatly forgive anyway since we can't know exactly how bad something was. but God can be compleatly sure. God does not accept plea bargains, drop charges if you plead guilty, etc. etc., the comprimises our justice system almost has to make to run the way it does, because infinite justice+infinite wisdom can have no comprimises. It's not a matter of balance, let's say you had a computer with a hard-drive with 30 percent bad sectors and 70 percent good, you wouldn't use it, right? All those bad sectors would prevent data from really ever being saved efficiently, and they would spread over time. It would be thrown away. Why should God refuse to deliver justice on someone's sins just because they had more good deeds than evil, even our justice system now doesn't really do that, if someone lives 70 years and does relatively good things and then goes on a serial killing spree, it's likely they'll get either life in prison or the death penalty the way things are now, or at the very least their sentence will be so long they won't survive it at their age. In summary, what many people would personally enjoy for God to do with our sins does not have the backing of infinite goodness behind it, in fact, one might say it is inherently selfish to a point. At any rate, the debate is relatively meaningless, it barely takes any time to repent of your sins and surrender yourself to Christ to recieve compleate forgiveness anyway, and the longer this debate goes on, the less it seems people care about recieving forgiveness than they do about bashing God's infinite justice :/

God does not accept plea bargains, drop charges if you plead guilty, etc. etc., the comprimises our justice system almost has to make to run the way it does, because infinite justice+infinite wisdom can have no comprimises.

I am always appalled by the abuse of the term "infinite". So far as current data strongly supports, even our current Universe is not infinite. God can be far wiser and more powerful than you can ever imagine, and still not be infinite.

But you immediately assume God to be so. Why does a God with infinite everythings appeal to so many people? I am sure there are people who are concerned at the prospect that such a God exists, including the originator of this thread. I certainly would be worried if it were true, because nothing else in this Universe or any Universe could provide checks and balances to this infinite power.

Yet you are not worried. Let me guess why. It is because you believe you can control God.

Now the reason for using infinitives becomes clear - it enables potent empowerment of the self - a nucleating agent for some of the most powerful social groups on Earth.

Make no mistake, boys and girls. Like it or not, as long as their respective believers exists, Gods will exist. And the power of their Gods will continue to have real impact to the world for many years to come.

I am always appalled by the abuse of the term "infinite". So far as current data strongly supports, even our current Universe is not infinite. God can be far wiser and more powerful than you can ever imagine, and still not be infinite.

But you immediately assume God to be so. Why does a God with infinite everythings appeal to so many people? I am sure there are people who are concerned at the prospect that such a God exists, including the originator of this thread. I certainly would be worried if it were true, because nothing else in this Universe or any Universe could provide checks and balances to this infinite power.

Yet you are not worried. Let me guess why. It is because you believe you can control God.

Now the reason for using infinitives becomes clear - it enables potent empowerment of the self - a nucleating agent for some of the most powerful social groups on Earth.

Make no mistake, boys and girls. Like it or not, as long as their respective believers exists, Gods will exist. And the power of their Gods will continue to have real impact to the world for many years to come.

Your argument assumes that i've personally made up a God with infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, which im afraid my limited imagination would be incapable of doing. I have not assumed that God has anything whatsoever besides what He has told us He had, when God takes the time to tell us stuff and put it all in a book, I for one like to listen. Of course, I am fully aware that this single statement has the capability to degenerate this discussion into a hopeless argument over Bible authenticity, but the point is, I have not gotten my information from my imagination, I have gotten it from the Bible, not myself. Whether people see this as arrogant, stupid, bigoted, hateful, idiotic, selfish, and anything else out of people's "5003 ways to insult Bible believers" books does not change this, the point is, im not the one assuming God is anything. I also am not counting on my amazingly non-existant ability to control God. The entire method of recieving ultimate forgiveness from Jesus, who is God, is through a spirit of compleate surrender, not a spirit of selfish urge to control our destinies and end up in heaven. If that were true, I would not be here posting about this, I would of been going back to doing, well, pretty much nothing with my life except playing video games as much as possible. Also, Jesus told us that whosoever believes in Him would be born again spiritually speaking, and I know this to be true personally, because I can tell I have a radical shift in my thinking that I most certainly did not have before surrendering to Christ. While I certainly can't prove this occurance in myself to anyone, the point is, I personally am not the one making anything up or controlling God in the slightest. Also, I am not worried, not because I am the one who controls what God is, but because He controls what He is. Finally, God already has checks and balances that prevent Him from violating His character, infinite power requires infinite wisdom to know how to use, infinite power also requires infinite goodness so it does not absolutly and instantly corrupt, infinite goodness requires infinite love, and infinite goodness also requires infinite justice, otherwise, God would essentially be saying "Aw shucks, evil ain't worth discouraging none" and that's not even good in a limited sense, much less an unlimited one.

Nextly, if the universe isn't infinitly large, where is the barrier/boundary/end? I read the news, and lots of it, probably while I should be paying attention in class too. I think I would of noticed big headlines about scientists proving where the universe ends. Yet, I have yet to see anything of the sort. Furthermore, assuming the universe is infinite, we would simply only be able to continue seeing more and more of it as time goes on forever, which as I understand it, we are currently doing with telescopes and whatnot. If the "data" strongly supports a finite universe, why do most of the big scientific groups not all sign a little petition saying "We believe in a finite universe because it is fact", when with other "strong data" they will sign a petition saying "We believe in evolution as a fact"?

I have not gotten my information from my imagination, I have gotten it from the Bible, not myself. Whether people see this as arrogant, stupid, bigoted, hateful, idiotic, selfish, and anything else out of people's "5003 ways to insult Bible believers" books does not change this, the point is, im not the one assuming God is anything. I also am not counting on my amazingly non-existant ability to control God.

I agree that the source of your belief is the bible. I did not say that you made up your God, who is of course fairly well defined in the bible, which is quite an entrenched tradition. I did suspect that your internal motivation for believing in Iehovah so strongly is because of the empowerment it gives you, personally. Obviously a God who doesn't answer prayers and doesn't interact with individuals at a personal level can very well be the actual true God, but that doesn't make Him real popular 'round here.

The entire method of recieving ultimate forgiveness from Jesus, who is God, is through a spirit of compleate surrender, not a spirit of selfish urge to control our destinies and end up in heaven. If that were true, I would not be here posting about this, I would of been going back to doing, well, pretty much nothing with my life except playing video games as much as possible.

Except playing video games doesn't get you into heaven. So if you do desire to go there, you would come to this forum to discuss your beliefs. This is a behavior consistent with personal empowerment.

Nextly, if the universe isn't infinitly large, where is the barrier/boundary/end? I read the news, and lots of it, probably while I should be paying attention in class too. I think I would of noticed big headlines about scientists proving where the universe ends. Yet, I have yet to see anything of the sort. Furthermore, assuming the universe is infinite, we would simply only be able to continue seeing more and more of it as time goes on forever, which as I understand it, we are currently doing with telescopes and whatnot. If the "data" strongly supports a finite universe, why do most of the big scientific groups not all sign a little petition saying "We believe in a finite universe because it is fact", when with other "strong data" they will sign a petition saying "We believe in evolution as a fact"?

Perhaps you should pay more attention in class. Here is a recent measurement of the expanse of observable universe. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

Actually my point in my previous post is, in a bizarre way, we share an almost identical view. You believe that God exists, and I believe that God exists as long as you exist. As long as you are alive, we are in complete agreement.

I agree that the source of your belief is the bible. I did not say that you made up your God, who is of course fairly well defined in the bible, which is quite an entrenched tradition. I did suspect that your internal motivation for believing in Iehovah so strongly is because of the empowerment it gives you, personally. Obviously a God who doesn't answer prayers and doesn't interact with individuals at a personal level can very well be the actual true God, but that doesn't make Him real popular 'round here.
Fair enough, God has often been unpopular with many people :/
Except playing video games doesn't get you into heaven. So if you do desire to go there, you would come to this forum to discuss your beliefs. This is a behavior consistent with personal empowerment.
What I meant was that without Christ, i'd just be doing whatever I normally wanted to do, and well, even now I have no life whatsoever, so it would be non-stop video gaming for me....or worse. Also, evangelism or just plain defending Christ's teachings doesn't necessarily have to be done out of a spirit of idontwannagotohellidontwannagotohellidontwannagotohell mentality, I know fully well the consequences of not being saved, so to sit around doing nothing all day to tell people this would be increadibly selfish beyond all meaning of the word. Plus, I like to do what Christ says we should do generally, because I certainly appreciate the gravity of what He did for us, and therefore enjoy doing what He asks us to do.
Perhaps you should pay more attention in class. Here is a recent measurement of the expanse of observable universe. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
Also fair enough, I do get pretty sad grades often, but the universe does not have to have matter all throughout it, (Unless that conflicts with the definition of a universe, now that I think about it, im not really sure how the word "universe" is defined :/) for it to be limited there would clearly have to be a wall or barrier of some sort where nothing can pass, so as long as we can't see that light all bouncing back at us in some huge focusing effect which would probably be quite startling, it would seem that there's no way for us to actually see an end to it.
Actually my point in my previous post is, in a bizarre way, we share an almost identical view. You believe that God exists, and I believe that God exists as long as you exist. As long as you are alive, we are in complete agreement.
Don't take my word for God's existance, the Bible's got everything im talking about in it, unless I for whatever reason start saying something radically unbiblical, which wouldn't be impossible.....

I don't know why I like replying by bolding in between paragraphs....

Actually, you didn't present a question. It would be classified as a rant.

The Book of Revelations is not to be taken literally. Its a metaphor of the Early Christians and the Roman Empire.

Now, I would like you to try to think about another thing. If God is torturing His creations because they won't bow to His undbending will, why aren't the Satanists screaming in agony? Why aren't atheists dropping like flies? In my opinion, that is clear proof of there being free will.

In my opinion, that is clear proof of there being no god.:mp5:

Yet you are not worried. Let me guess why. It is because you believe you can control God.

Now the reason for using infinitives becomes clear - it enables potent empowerment of the self - a nucleating agent for some of the most powerful social groups on Earth.

Woah, that never occured to me before, and isn't it ironic that that's something that certain monotheist argue against certain Pagans with - that we have weaker gods than their OMG!infinite one, and so should convert. In the end, they're trying to do a 'my god beating up your god', whether or not the gods in question have any interest in fighting each other in the first place.



assuming the universe is infinite, we would simply only be able to continue seeing more and more of it as time goes on forever, which as I understand it, we are currently doing with telescopes and whatnot.

No, we are seeing the doppler effect, of the 'things' in the universe receding. For all we know, they are crashing into a brick wall beyond our vision.

I think people believe in God/s because they are to afraid/blind to see and acknowledge that there is no greater power. I think that these people might be searching for something to fulfill their lives which only a figure with superhuman abilities can live up to. Or maybe the theory of God's were just a well-constructed lie to keep the masses under control and living in fear of a greater power.

...assuming the universe is infinite, we would simply only be able to continue seeing more and more of it as time goes on forever, which as I understand it, we are currently doing with telescopes and whatnot.

Nothing is infinite/limitless/unlimited/endless/how ever you want to put it.

I agree that the source of your belief is the bible. I did not say that you made up your God, who is of course fairly well defined in the bible, which is quite an entrenched tradition. I did suspect that your internal motivation for believing in Iehovah so strongly is because of the empowerment it gives you, personally. Obviously a God who doesn't answer prayers and doesn't interact with individuals at a personal level can very well be the actual true God, but that doesn't make Him real popular 'round here.
Fair enough, God has often been unpopular with many people :/
Except playing video games doesn't get you into heaven. So if you do desire to go there, you would come to this forum to discuss your beliefs. This is a behavior consistent with personal empowerment.
What I meant was that without Christ, i'd just be doing whatever I normally wanted to do, and well, even now I have no life whatsoever, so it would be non-stop video gaming for me....or worse. Also, evangelism or just plain defending Christ's teachings doesn't necessarily have to be done out of a spirit of idontwannagotohellidontwannagotohellidontwannagotohell mentality, I know fully well the consequences of not being saved, so to sit around doing nothing all day to tell people this would be increadibly selfish beyond all meaning of the word. Plus, I like to do what Christ says we should do generally, because I certainly appreciate the gravity of what He did for us, and therefore enjoy doing what He asks us to do.
Perhaps you should pay more attention in class. Here is a recent measurement of the expanse of observable universe. http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040524.html
Also fair enough, I do get pretty sad grades often, but the universe does not have to have matter all throughout it, (Unless that conflicts with the definition of a universe, now that I think about it, im not really sure how the word "universe" is defined :/) for it to be limited there would clearly have to be a wall or barrier of some sort where nothing can pass, so as long as we can't see that light all bouncing back at us in some huge focusing effect which would probably be quite startling, it would seem that there's no way for us to actually see an end to it.
Actually my point in my previous post is, in a bizarre way, we share an almost identical view. You believe that God exists, and I believe that God exists as long as you exist. As long as you are alive, we are in complete agreement.
Don't take my word for God's existance, the Bible's got everything im talking about in it, unless I for whatever reason start saying something radically unbiblical, which wouldn't be impossible.....I don't know why I like replying by bolding in between paragraphs....

I don't know if it's any part of your motivation, but it makes it darned difficult to include your comments in a coherant reply.
I've jumped a set of flaming hoops just to include your latest comments, above, never mind respond...


As for:
Fair enough, God has often been unpopular with many people :/I've lost track, is that the Judeo-Christian (or even just Christian) God, or generic God or even the concept of an Almighty, head/personal_representative-of-Pantheon, etc?

And do you mean '[un]popular' as in [the opposite to] "well-liked" or "overwhelmingly-believed"?

What you mean by that effects how I understand your opinion.

But as to the main point I was wanting to respond to (again, torn from your awkward method of replying).

Also fair enough, I do get pretty sad grades often, but the universe does not have to have matter all throughout it, (Unless that conflicts with the definition of a universe, now that I think about it, im not really sure how the word "universe" is defined :/) for it to be limited there would clearly have to be a wall or barrier of some sort where nothing can pass, so as long as we can't see that light all bouncing back at us in some huge focusing effect which would probably be quite startling, it would seem that there's no way for us to actually see an end to it.The surface of the Earth is limited, yet unbounded. Assuming you don't get stopped by oceans [and I'm not alluding adversely to walking on water!!!] and hills you can travel in any direction you want without barrier or "seeing youself coming back the other way". But only over a limited area.

And the article gives information that it is less likely that there is a 'wraparound', but it isn't obvious to a person on the Earth's surface that going all the way round the Earth would bring them back to where they started... There might be a non-boundary wraparound to the Universe beyond the visible horizon of the universe. That puts some lower limits on the size (finite universe in which light had time to 'wrap around' since the Big Bang) and explains one of the caveats ("However, if they were to 'pump up' their soccer ball to make it larger, they could evade our bounds" and still be in the realm of possibility, Cornish said.)

(I don't really like the 'crazy hall of mirrors' anlogy to the wraparound, because people don't understand the 'craziness' of it. It's not mirrors out at the edge, but more like how if you pilot off one side/corner of the screen in that grand old game of Asteroids you come back in on the other... And hopefully not hit an asteroid you forgot to account for when initiating the burn... ;))


Or, then again, it could just be that the Universe's 'bound' is the 'light-front', the limits of it being "as far out as any light from the Big Bang can reach. Except that this is a rather bad way of describing it, given that it is the 'substrate of the Universe' that is being measured, not the stuff (including light) that travels over it...

Darn. That's still not an accurate description, but I' haven't the means to describe it. When're we implementing MITP (Mental Image Transfer Protocol) on Nationstates? ;)

(I don't really like the 'crazy hall of mirrors' anlogy to the wraparound, because people don't understand the 'craziness' of it. It's not mirrors out at the edge, but more like how if you pilot off one side/corner of the screen in that grand old game of Asteroids you come back in on the other... And hopefully not hit an asteroid you forgot to account for when initiating the burn... ;))And you know how you can't shoot yourself in Asteroids (the bullets phase out before completing the distance back to your ship), well, the inverse square rule conceivably brings the detectable light from a "wraparound" effect in the real universe down to unobservable levels (especially with an expanding universe, where the waves could be red-shifted into unimaginably-long wavelengths undetectable by present (or any?) technlogy through sub-Planck fluctuations in space...

Hmmm. Never thought of that before.

any part of your motivation, but it makes it darned difficult to include your comments in a coherant reply.
I've jumped a set of flaming hoops just to include your latest comments, above, never mind respond...

As for:
I've lost track, is that the Judeo-Christian (or even just Christian) God, or generic God or even the concept of an Almighty, head/personal_representative-of-Pantheon, etc?

And do you mean '[un]popular' as in [the opposite to] "well-liked" or "overwhelmingly-believed"?

What you mean by that effects how I understand your opinion.

But as to the main point I was wanting to respond to (again, torn from your awkward method of replying).

The surface of the Earth is limited, yet unbounded. Assuming you don't get stopped by oceans [and I'm not alluding adversely to walking on water!!!] and hills you can travel in any direction you want without barrier or "seeing youself coming back the other way". But only over a limited area.

And the article gives information that it is less likely that there is a 'wraparound', but it isn't obvious to a person on the Earth's surface that going all the way round the Earth would bring them back to where they started... There might be a non-boundary wraparound to the Universe beyond the visible horizon of the universe. That puts some lower limits on the size (finite universe in which light had time to 'wrap around' since the Big Bang) and explains one of the caveats ("However, if they were to 'pump up' their soccer ball to make it larger, they could evade our bounds" and still be in the realm of possibility, Cornish said.)

(I don't really like the 'crazy hall of mirrors' anlogy to the wraparound, because people don't understand the 'craziness' of it. It's not mirrors out at the edge, but more like how if you pilot off one side/corner of the screen in that grand old game of Asteroids you come back in on the other... And hopefully not hit an asteroid you forgot to account for when initiating the burn... ;))


Or, then again, it could just be that the Universe's 'bound' is the 'light-front', the limits of it being "as far out as any light from the Big Bang can reach. Except that this is a rather bad way of describing it, given that it is the 'substrate of the Universe' that is being measured, not the stuff (including light) that travels over it...

Darn. That's still not an accurate description, but I' haven't the means to describe it. When're we implementing MITP (Mental Image Transfer Protocol) on Nationstates? ;)

1.Ok, sorry about putting it in a quote box, It's just i've done it before and people replied to it so I assumed it was no problem :/.

2. Well I was primarily thinking of the Christian concept, but thinking about it, you could probably make up ANY version of a God or supreme being of any sort and find someone who hates the idea, on many varied grounds, and some people just plain don't like the idea of ANY sort of God whatsoever, and by unpopular, I mean that people don't like Him. Generally, it seems to me that the Christian concept is more widely despised than just a generic concept of God, from ground ranging from everything from it somehow being an arrogant, selfish concept, to hatred of the idea of Hell, to hatred of the idea that God could allow us to have free will and thusly let us sin, and the list goes on and on :/

3.I think I sort of get what your trying to say, it's entirely possible it just wraps around in some way, but it doesn't necessarily have to wrap around compleatly, and there could still be an outside to whatever wrap around there is, like how Earth wraps around if you walk on it's surface but if you blast off of it you find a whole lot more space. Or, it might not.

1.Ok, sorry about putting it in a quote box, It's just i've done it before and people replied to it so I assumed it was no problem :/.
Best thing to do (IMO, and there are other ways) is to copy the "{QUOTE=Theorb}" (in this case, and swapping the square brackets for curly for "I don't want it to /really/ work" demonstration purposes) text from the begining, go to after the bit you want to break for a reply, write in "{/QUOTE}" (again substituted brackets), whatever you want to reply with and then (just before the next item you want to reply to) paste the "{QUOTE=...}" back in again. Together with any removal of text that you don't want to reply to, of course.

(What I had to do to reply to your other item was to make a copy of the last message, manually put the "{QUOTE=}...{/QUOTE}" around it, manually reinsert the {B}{/B} tags, etc... and even then I got the link tagging wrong, so it didn't work... And I bet there are easier ways of doing all of it, but there you go... ;))

My point on this front wasn't really relevent to the subject, so let's let it lie... eh? ;)

2. Well I was primarily thinking of the Christian concept, but thinking about it, you could probably make up ANY version of a God or supreme being of any sort and find someone who hates the idea, on many varied grounds, and some people just plain don't like the idea of ANY sort of God whatsoever, and by unpopular, I mean that people don't like Him. Generally, it seems to me that the Christian concept is more widely despised than just a generic concept of God, from ground ranging from everything from it somehow being an arrogant, selfish concept, to hatred of the idea of Hell, to hatred of the idea that God could allow us to have free will and thusly let us sin, and the list goes on and on :/ By what you say, I think that any single and focussed concept of God has, indeed, been unpopular, if only because many people have had their own ideas... I mean, look at the protestant/catholic persecutions of in Elizabethan times (and temporarly surrounding eras) in England. (Which is also being used as a a Good Excuse (TM) in the Irelands (Republic and Northern), despite it largely these days being thugs and the brains behind them who prolong the separatism for political/power/wealth-producing reasons, not as much religious differences as actually occured back in Cromwell's days... IMHO...). Hardly any difference between the two, compared with the Christianity/Judaism divide, etc, etc...

I'm snipping the rest of what I just said. Seven large paragraphs is too much waffle. Shortened: Conditions are that Christianity is the loudest-shouted religion in the currently most internationally active states. This directs hatred towards the "Crusaders", whereas (vocal minority excepted) the return hatred is a much lower (and, where it does exist, more 'probably also from secular xenophobia' in nature) kind.

Msot current religions (that I have experience with) have elements in their texts that say "tolerate the others" as well as "we are the best, convert/destroy the heathens"... It is swings and roundabouts which views are espoused as the dominant at any one time, plus minorities with the latter view colour what their parent-religion looks like to non-members. Thus a Christian feels hard-done-by from everyone else, and everyone else probably sees Christianity as a threat.

3.I think I sort of get what your trying to say, it's entirely possible it just wraps around in some way, but it doesn't necessarily have to wrap around compleatly, and there could still be an outside to whatever wrap around there is, like how Earth wraps around if you walk on it's surface but if you blast off of it you find a whole lot more space. Or, it might not.That's another dimension, "blasting off". In the two dimensions of the Earth's surface (assuming you were unaare of up/down) it would be finite-but-unbounded, and 'off-surface' travel (in/out of the sphere) is as difficult as wandering 'sideways' out of 3D space is to us. (Exluding time as a dimension.)

Personally, I like a neat solution to problems, and I quite like the idea of a hypersphere representing the whole Universe. Latitide is equivalent to time, and the three 'longitude's of this 'sphere in 5D' (surface is 4D) are our 3 space dimensions. Travelling round comes back to the begining, and it also solves the whole issue about beginning/ends of Universe (there's the two poles, which are not 'boundaries', merely limits to realistic values of time). What formed the sphere (complete, including all the passage of time, frozen to the containing world) could be God or spontaneous creation or (if you want it) eternal existence. And as there are intepretations of theoretical physics that give better universal explanations with higher dimensions, make that hyper-sphere inhabit the 11 dimensions of M-Space, the sphere's 'surface' be 10-dimensional, representing the M-brane and the like...

Sorry, more waffle. There are people on this forum better at this thing than I, and I'm sure they're laughing at my simplification of the situation (or, worse, mis-numbering of the dimensions involved).


BTW, I've just re-finished reading the Nomes Trilogy (a.k.a: the Bromeliad) by Terry Pratchett (consisting of the books "Truckers", "Diggers" and "Wings"). There's a lot of interesting things (implicit and explict about the nature of Faith (starting with "Arnold Bros (est. 1905)", the Creator of the Store, and including NASA as "Maker Of Clouds", and the universe as viewed by small frogs never mind "The Thing", which is the most omniscient being in the whole tale, yet the least worhsipped). I particularly liked the chapter header that says:SCIENCE: A way of finding things out and then making them work. Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does RELIGION, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it's wrong. There is a lot more Science than you think.
From /A Scientific Encyclopedia for the Enquiring Young Nome/
by Angalo de Habaderdasheri

God doesnt exist according to any major religious ident (prove it wrong) and therefore we cannont know what he wants from us.
As such we can just live by what we deem to be Right.

Btw. Jehova's witnesses came to my door (yeeh... i know... im cruel.)
and i asked one of them about starving children in africa.
"God places them there to bring out the best in the rest of us."
"..."
"..."
"...you really believe that huh."
"...Yes."
"..." SLAM

Ok, this post won't be very long, so I won't quote everything. Firstly, thanks Baka for the quote tip :). Nextly, you are probably right in saying that most modern religions have some tolerance clause in their charter's somewhere, there's so many new ones out there it wouldn't surprise me at all. But the thing is, the Bible never mentions intolerance as a sin even once, and you'd think with all the time it covers, if God wanted us to know that tolerance was good and intolerance gets one sent to hell, that He would tell us somewhere. Of course, tolerance can mean multiple things to different people in this day and age, but it seems to me that dedicating oneself to leaving the world alone with it's decisions and accepting everything as OK and just ignoring Christ's call to go out and preach the truth for fear that you'll offend someone would sort of rule tolerance out as something the Bible would especially like, but then again, I don't even know what definition of tolerance we're using, there's several as I understand it :/.

On the universe size thing, honestly, thinking about it a bit, I don't think we need to argue about it any longer, im not really sure if it's even relevant to anything important anyway, and even though I still understand what your saying, I don't think that if someone comes in and makes it more technical i'll have any idea what's going on anymore heh.

Now, to Europa Alpha, what does religious ident mean, is that short for identity? And on the Jehovah witness thing, I think I agree with you that that's a pretty bunked way of thinking on their part, especially since "bringing out the best in us" is pretty irrelevant since our best isn't enough to get to heaven alone anyway. But the thing about the Watchtower is that they've trained all their people to get even stronger faith-wise the more the door gets slammed in their faces, which would be admirable except for how they've messed with the Bible so radically, im afraid that your probably only encouraging them :/.