NationStates Jolt Archive

Such whining. Get real. Do you think any god would give two shits about a peon like you or me?

Yes he does care about you Saipea. That is why He sent His Son Jesus to take away your sins. Why would He do that if he didn't care about us?

Just a thought, maybe we're all here to be punished. Hence when good people die young they are being rewarded. Going on to better things etc.

Perhaps this wasn't very clear, but I meant scientific theories of origin. True science, that which can be definitively proven, does tend to stick around.

Nothing can be "definitively proven" using science. That isn't how the method works. A hypothesis can either be supported or disproven with a scientific experiment. If supported enough, it may go on to be seen as a theory. But every theory, even those we refer to as laws, are still open to question - and may be disproven by future data.


First of all, most people on this board who claim that there is a God have no evidence,

No empirical evidence, you mean. Personal experience goes a long way with some of us.

Secondly, either you're wrong, or all other religions are wrong, or you're both wrong.

Or you're both right. Or you're both somewhat wrong and somewhat right.

I believe there is a God. I believe that God allows things like that to happen so we can realize that we aren't control, He is.

I believe there is a God, because when I look at the other explanations for the world, like evolution (which, personally, I count as a religion, just without the tax-free status), I find them rather lacking.

Go ahead, laugh. Call me an idiot. Do what you like. But when we die, we'll see who's right.

I am not saying that the Catholic Church stood in the way of knowledge all the time. But it is an undeniable fact that many people, including Copernicus, Darwin, and Galileo, were threatened and persecuted by the Church, and most people lived in fear of the Church's power, preventing them from reading the "heretical" works of scientists who went against the Church's beliefs. It's not as if the Catholic Church spent all of its time persecuting people, but they were undoubtedly a hindrance to reason and science. Even the Pope John Paul II admitted that the Church had been wrong in attacking Galileo and others. So you are the one who is wrong.

It is also a fact that the current administration in charge of the executive branch of the USA fires scientific advisors who don't say exactly what the administration wants to hear - thus blocking science. Certain scientific investigations are criminilized or blocked by the US or state governments based on nothing more than the personal moral beliefs of the people in power.

This is hardly restricted to religion.

2) And why would I turn the other cheek?

Originally? As a form of passive resistance to keep your attacker from hitting you anymore.

These days? You wouldn't. You'd have to find another form of passive resistance.[/quote]

Yes. However removing them for that reason is to put words in Jesus' mouth yourself.

Hence the reason for praying for guidance on these issues, rather than taking the words of man as the words of Christ.

The letters of paul are based on the teachings of Jesus

And so are the sermons of preachers today - but we don't regard them as infallible.

So were the preachers who would tell battered women to go home to their husbands and "turn the other cheek", without understanding the original significance of the passage.

Oh, c'mon...I'm frequently not on board with Bruarong either, but there are certainly worse here to watch out for...

What about Sons of Tarsonis, Corneliu, CanuckHeaven, or Theorb?

I quite liked Theorb actually but I haven't seen him around for ages. To his credit he actually listened to people rather than just Bible spamming them and he was always friendly.

I believe there is a God, because when I look at the other explanations for the world, like evolution (which, personally, I count as a religion, just without the tax-free status), I find them rather lacking.

If you are going to dismiss scientific theories, at least understand them first. Evolutionary theory isn't an "explanation for the world." It simply explains the diversity of species and how they develop.

Yes he does care about you Saipea. That is why He sent His Son Jesus to take away your sins. Why would He do that if he didn't care about us?

I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but even if you're not, this post made me lol.
(Although I was waiting for someone to say it)

I'm pretty sure you're kidding, but even if you're not, this post made me lol.
(Although I was waiting for someone to say it)

So you do not believe that God loves all of us and wants us to be with Him in His House?

I believe there is a God. I believe that God allows things like that to happen so we can realize that we aren't control, He is.

I believe there is a God, because when I look at the other explanations for the world, like evolution (which, personally, I count as a religion, just without the tax-free status), I find them rather lacking.

Go ahead, laugh. Call me an idiot. Do what you like. But when we die, we'll see who's right.

Does believing in gravity deserve tax emept status? How about a spheroid earth?

So you do not believe that God loves all of us and wants us to be with Him in His House?

You're pushing the joke a bit far...

You're pushing the joke a bit far...

I take that as no you don't believe it even though that is precisely what He wants. He wants all us to believe in His Son, Jesus, so that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven for it is written that Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.

It saddens Him when people reject Him and turn their backs on Him.

I take that as no you don't believe it even though that is precisely what He wants. He wants all us to believe in His Son, Jesus, so that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven for it is written that Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.

It saddens Him when people reject Him and turn their backs on Him.

But that's what all the other religions and religious figures say as well.
Am I supposed to choose at random?

But that's what all the other religions and religious figures say as well.
Am I supposed to choose at random?

There is only One God and His Son is Jesus Christ who was crucified on the Cross for us.

i think you are trying very hard not to understand adriaticas point

he is talking about how the system would have to work if god DID spare the lives of "good" people and let "bad" people die. no one is advocating letting bad people die.

if god spared good people and let bad people die, then medicine would be verifiably acting against the will of god. digging people out of avalanches would be a freaking SIN.

the world DOESNT work that way. bad things happen to good people and bad people and it is NOT our job to decide who is who. that is obviously the way god wants it. he isnt "killing your friend even though she is a very good person" he is letting the system he set up operate in the way he set it up.

No - you miss my point.

If God wanted to kill sinners, and only sinners... that doesn't have any bearing on what WE should do, as people. We don't get to judge.

Add to which - if God wanted me dead, I'd be dead... thus, anyone I COULD save, must have been INTENDED to be saved, no?

The Catholic Church did not go against knowledge, so long as it did not contradict its orthodoxy. People exaggerate the extent of its actions.

Based on the assumption that they would let evidence to the contrary survive....

the idea, i think, is that God doens't actually cause suffering. he created man with free will, and most bad things that happen are consequenses of the free will. however, the free will i needed for the creation to have a meaning. i think it is impossible to prove the existance of God, but also impossible to prove that he doesn't exist. but that's not the point. sometimes i think one has to believe in something without having the "factual" proof for it.

Egalitarian stupidity. Lovely.

There's a line between being open minded and open to letting people being stupid and delusional. In the realm of philosophy, be it political or religious, it's a big red line.
An there's a really dangerous line between being narrow-minded and being downright rude with all your own self-righteousness, to the point that you've calling anyone who believes in God as stupid and delusional, just because Mr. Self-Righteousness isn't willing to tolerate their freedom to believe...

More importantly, there is no "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" crap in these fields (even if you are the idiot with the crackpot ideas), because any genuine believer is adamant enough about their beliefs to think everyone else is wrong.
Just like some non-believers are adamant enough about their beliefs to think everyone else is wrong.

Simply put, cut the self-righteous crap. Only idea-less fools and liars promote the idea of "everyone is right and can believe what they want."
Listen to yourself then; that will be a good start.

The davinci code, while not the cause of my lack of faith, put forth an interesting question. All the christians are saying that it is a work of fiction and that just because it is written in a book doesn't make it true. But isn't their entire faith pulled out of a book? What if it the bible was under the fiction section or the davinci code put under religon? The bible and the davinci code have the same ammount of proof in both of them (none whatsoever). Seeing this, I chose to belive in the gospel of another book, namely the Wheres Waldo books and have set up my cult of Wheres Waldoism. Our goal is to acheive enlightement through the search for Waldo. We also don't believe in death. Our other gods are the 12 followers of Waldo, Wenda, the Wizard Whitebeard, Odlaw, and bacon. Some of our more promenit demi gods include Capri Sun Juicers, Stephan A Blackford, and Gamling (Theodens Retainer from LOTR)
We have about 10 people right now but you can join if you want.

But isn't their entire faith pulled out of a book?

No.

Actually..the bible has more proof in it than the di vinci code does for the Bible is truth and the Di Vinci Code is a work of fiction.

Actually..the bible has more proof in it than the di vinci code does for the Bible is truth and the Di Vinci Code is a work of fiction.

Wish I could agree with you, I really do.

However, since the ONLY things that can be 'confirmed' about either book are the non-religious elements, they are both equally devoid of 'proof'.

Wish I could agree with you, I really do.

However, since the ONLY things that can be 'confirmed' about either book are the non-religious elements, they are both equally devoid of 'proof'.

The proof of the Bible's truth is there for those who are seeking it.

The proof of the Bible's truth is there for those who are seeking it.

Not true, actually.

A muslim, for example, might well be seeking the truth, but would not find it in the Bible.

I, personally, am on a driven quest to find truth, and the Bible has been more than one stopping point on that road... but has consistently failed to be the destination.

What you mean is, those who seek the truth - which they have already decided will be as described in the Bible - will find it in the Bible.

I find it illogical to base an argument on so circular an assumption.

Not true, actually.

A muslim, for example, might well be seeking the truth, but would not find it in the Bible.

I, personally, am on a driven quest to find truth, and the Bible has been more than one stopping point on that road... but has consistently failed to be the destination.

What you mean is, those who seek the truth - which they have already decided will be as described in the Bible - will find it in the Bible.

I find it illogical to base an argument on so circular an assumption.

It is only through the Lord Jesus Christ that a person can get into the Kingdom of Heaven. God sent his Son to take away our sins through his blood when he died for us on the Cross. As it is written, For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son to die for us for whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

It is through Jesus that we are saved and through him that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven for it is He who has died for us and conquered death and sin.

The truth is there for those who are willing to hear it. He who have ears, let him hear for the truth will set you free.

The truth is there for those who are willing to hear it. He who have ears, let him hear for the truth will set you free.

Good god, that is such fucking bullshit.

I don't have a problem with people or their religions, honestly, I don't. But I do get fairly flustered when I get someone of any religion preaching on and on about how it's "the one true faith," and how if I don't accept it, I'm "unwilling to hear it," thereby making it my fault that I don't believe in a big, invisible guy who rolled the Universe out of clay, thus condemning me to an eternity in Hell.

Then there's that rapist over there, who, while quite a horrible person, truly believes in God and thus, he'll only get 1,000 years or so in Hell, and then he gets to go to Heaven. Fuck that. It's no god damn wonder religions don't get along, they all have built-in safeguards against such a "horrible" thing. Non-Mormons can't set foot in Mormon Temples, and if you don't believe in God, Christian churches send you to hell. Wow.

I'd rather go to Hell than mindlessly drone on in Heaven under a God who mandates that kind of policy, thanks.

It is only through the Lord Jesus Christ that a person can get into the Kingdom of Heaven. God sent his Son to take away our sins through his blood when he died for us on the Cross. As it is written, For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son to die for us for whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

It is through Jesus that we are saved and through him that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven for it is He who has died for us and conquered death and sin.

The truth is there for those who are willing to hear it. He who have ears, let him hear for the truth will set you free.

Do you at least see where your reasoning is circular?

The book is true because the dogma is true, the dogma is true because the book is true...

You understand that the idea works just as well for the Koran or anybody else's holy book, right?

I have to wonder if you aren't just a very dedicated puppet trying to keep people AWAY from religion, because the mindset you represent would hardly be inviting.

*snip*

Fear not for the Lord is coming soon.

Fear not for the Lord is coming soon.
:D

LOL

Fear not for the Lord is coming soon.

Your response is exactly the mindset I'm talking about.

Has it occurred to you that people with some acumen might actually be inclined to AVOID your religion because of the things you say?

There may have been a time where the droning repitition of dogma would convince people, particularly when they had little alternative. And there will always be people whose suggestibility makes them easy prey for that kind of thing.

But don't you think that now, there might be more people who want to explore faith that can actually make reasonable, considered, and well-posed responses? Religion that doesn't rely on just repeating its dogma over and over again?

Seriously, Corneliu, if what you really want is for people to consider your religious dogma more seriously, you might have to put the script-card down and start addressing people's concerns, like why one should embrace one particular religion's circular logic when lots of religions offer the same thing.

Your response is exactly the mindset I'm talking about.

Has it occurred to you that people with some acumen might actually be inclined to AVOID your religion because of the things you say?

That would be their choice but they will have to bear the consequences if they choose to reject the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. For it is only through Him that our sins are forgiven and that we can avoid death.

There may have been a time where the droning repitition of dogma would convince people, particularly when they had little alternative. And there will always be people whose suggestibility makes them easy prey for that kind of thing.

He who helps his neighbors in the name of the Lord and Believes in the Lord will receive the blessing of God.

But don't you think that now, there might be more people who want to explore faith that can actually make reasonable, considered, and well-posed responses? Religion that doesn't rely on just repeating its dogma over and over again?

Repeating dogma, as you say, is not what I am doing for the Truth is what I am saying.

Seriously, Corneliu, if what you really want is for people to consider your religious dogma more seriously, you might have to put the script-card down and start addressing people's concerns, like why one should embrace one particular religion's circular logic when lots of religions offer the same thing.

For it is only through Jesus that we can truly be saved.

Repeating dogma, as you say, is not what I am doing for the Truth is what I am saying.
Why can't dogma be the truth?

People do not speak the truth, they witness it.

Why can't dogma be the truth?

People do not speak the truth, they witness it.

When you witness to people, you are still using words to spread the Good News.

That would be their choice but they will have to bear the consequences if they choose to reject the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. For it is only through Him that our sins are forgiven and that we can avoid death.

He who helps his neighbors in the name of the Lord and Believes in the Lord will receive the blessing of God.

Repeating dogma, as you say, is not what I am doing for the Truth is what I am saying.

For it is only through Jesus that we can truly be saved.

Do you follow that there is a certain percentage of people, perhaps even a a majorative portion, particularly as a subset of people on the net who are presumably literate, who can see very clearly that you're doing exactly what I'm saying you're doing?

Every religion sees their dogma as "Truth", you are in no way unique in that regard.

As to "helping your neighbor", your method is so obtuse and fallacious, it most likely drives people AWAY from the aspects of Christ's teaching that represent real insight. How is that helping?

What will you do if, when you get to your God, he points to legions of people who couldn't help but be repelled by your circular reasoning and asks why you couldn't put a little more thought into your discussion?

That would be their choice but they will have to bear the consequences if they choose to reject the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. For it is only through Him that our sins are forgiven and that we can avoid death.I do now bow down for terrorists, be it divine or Earthly ones. Your petty thug of a god may violate my body & soul, but it will never rape my mind.He who helps his neighbors in the name of the Lord and Believes in the Lord will receive the blessing of God.Pfft! He who helps his neighbours in the name of the anti-God, and Spit on your terrorist deity, will receive the blessing that is Freedom.Repeating dogma, as you say, is not what I am doing for the Truth is what I am saying. Prove it.
For it is only through Jesus that we can truly be saved.Correction: For it is only through Jesus that we can truely be raped.

I submit to reason, not threats. I value freedom & respect, not torture. Your vision of God is a vicious monster. Should you turn out to be right, I shall forever smile as I burn in hell, knowing that between your deity & I, I am by far the superior being.

I hope that illustrates what Saint Curie has been trying to tell you.

When you witness to people, you are still using words to spread the Good News.

Yes, but you use words that sound as if they were spat of a computer or copied from a minister's sermon. To truly witness to someone, you have to get them to accept you as an intelligent person whose words have merit. Do so by talking on the same level, like mentioning personal experiences you and your audience might connect on, or try to make a few jokes to appear human.

From the language of your last few posts, I can see nothing more than a machine that spits out what its heard. Try to be more human to spread the Good News.

Edit: I'm not saying as a Christian, because I'm not, but as someone who hates to see people unable to express their beliefs to others.

*snip*

I put my trust in the Lord to guide me so that I can do his will. I believe that His Son Jesus died for my sins so that I can have eternal life.

I will bear witness to His truth and if people do not want to hear the Good News of the Lord then I mourn for them for it is written in Romans 12:3-5 "Because of the privilege and authority God has given me, I give each of you this warning: don't think you are better than you really are. Be honest in your evaluation of yourselves, measuring yourselves by the faith God has given us. Just as our bodies have many parts and each part has a special function, so it is with Christ's body. We are many parts of one body, and we all belong to eachother."

In Romans 11, it is also written that "Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! how impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!" (verse 33)

Also in Romans 12, it states that "Don't just pretend to love others. Really love them. hate what is wrong. Hold tightly to what is good. Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other. " (9-10)

Romans 13:14 tells us to "clothe yourself with the presence of the Lord Jesus christ. And don't let yourself think about ways to indulge your evil desires."

This is because sin is death. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death" Without Jesus in our life we are doomed to die. However, we have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we will not die but will see the Glory of Heaven.

Yes, but you use words that sound as if they were spat of a computer or copied from a minister's sermon. To truly witness to someone, you have to get them to accept you as an intelligent person whose words have merit. Do so by talking on the same level, like mentioning personal experiences you and your audience might connect on, or try to make a few jokes to appear human.

From the language of your last few posts, I can see nothing more than a machine that spits out what its heard. Try to be more human to spread the Good News.

Edit: I'm not saying as a Christian, because I'm not, but as someone who hates to see people unable to express their beliefs to others.

I will use the words that God gives me.

*snip*

I would not go around mocking the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. However I will forgive you for the remarks you have made for it is only when we forgive are we truly forgiven by Him.

I will use the words that God gives me.

Then you have no will, and I cannot take you seriously.

I don't want to talk to a friggin' Holy Mouthpiece, I want to talk to a human being that can get off of his quotes and communicate as though he still had a mind of his own. Acting like you can't think for yourself like this makes your religion sound like it has a brainwashing effect to me, as though it has robbed you of your mind.

At least tell us what those quotes you're so found of using mean to you. They are almost two millenia old and have been translated and re-translated so much they cannot stand for themselves. Give them new life so that people you talk to listen instead of letting the words roll over them.

I put my trust in the Lord to guide me so that I can do his will. I believe that His Son Jesus died for my sins so that I can have eternal life.

Yes, we know what you believe. Lots of religions repeat their beliefs over and over. You believe its okay to let somebody else take the punishment for what you do, as long as you get a big reward. We get it.


I will bear witness to His truth and if people do not want to hear the Good News of the Lord then I mourn for them for it is written in Romans 12:3-5 "Because of the privilege and authority God has given me, I give each of you this warning: don't think you are better than you really are. Be honest in your evaluation of yourselves, measuring yourselves by the faith God has given us. Just as our bodies have many parts and each part has a special function, so it is with Christ's body. We are many parts of one body, and we all belong to eachother."

Ah, privilege and authority. What Christ was all about...

Well, if faith is something given by God, guess its his fault I don't have your kind...


In Romans 11, it is also written that "Oh, how great are God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! how impossible it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways!" (verse 33)

Then why do you keep claiming to know what God wants, what he's like, how he wants us to think?

Oh, you've got the little scripture Book (we'll say script for short) to tell you what to say.

Corneliu, do you see the ways in which a dogmatic religion would benefit from the premise that their God's decisions should be regarded as beyond understanding? Do you understand why they'd teach that?


Also in Romans 12, it states that "Don't just pretend to love others. Really love them. hate what is wrong. Hold tightly to what is good. Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other. " (9-10)

Romans 13:14 tells us to "clothe yourself with the presence of the Lord Jesus christ. And don't let yourself think about ways to indulge your evil desires."

This is because sin is death. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death" Without Jesus in our life we are doomed to die. However, we have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we will not die but will see the Glory of Heaven.

To so closely juxtapose an impetus of love with a phrase that comes down to "Believe what we want or you will die"...

I would not go around mocking the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. However I will forgive you for the remarks you have made for it is only when we forgive are we truly forgiven by Him.

Mock?

Sim stated that your God kills and tortures those who don't do as he wants. You provided the scriptural backup, so you two are actually in agreement.

Then you have no will, and I cannot take you seriously.

I have given myself fully to the Lord Jesus. If this bothers you well I am sorry.

I don't want to talk to a friggin' Holy Mouthpiece, I want to talk to a human being that can get off of his quotes and communicate as though he still had a mind of his own. Acting like you can't think for yourself like this makes your religion sound like it has a brainwashing effect to me, as though it has robbed you of your mind.

I still have free will to do what I want.

At least tell us what those quotes you're so found of using mean to you. They are almost two millenia old and have been translated and re-translated so much they cannot stand for themselves. Give them new life so that people you talk to listen instead of letting the words roll over them.

The words I have used is how we as christians should live.

I have given myself fully to the Lord Jesus. If this bothers you well I am sorry.

*whisper* He sounds like some kind of zombie...Maybe Jesus ate his brain. He's like, un-dead isn't he?

*snip*

No matter what you say, my faith won't be shattered for I am strong in faith in the Lord Jesus.

I have given myself fully to the Lord Jesus. If this bothers you well I am sorry.

I still have free will to do what I want.

The words I have used is how we as christians should live.

Can you derive why a particular teaching is the right thing to do?

Without the book?

If so, why do you need the book?

If its not the right thing to do, on its own, because of its own inherent virtue and without some book, why is it okay with the book?

In short, if you need the script to tell you what is right, is that free will?

If what is right is right of its own nature, why do you need a book? Can you not tell right from wrong without a script?

*whisper* He sounds like some kind of zombie...Maybe Jesus ate his brain. He's like, un-dead isn't he?

No, he's in a well-documented cult-like mindset. His religion is a coping mechanism for some condition in his life; at this point, I have to suspect its some kind of pathology.

Even though I'm not Christian, I'm somehow comforted that there are Christians on this forum that represent a better mentality.

No matter what you say, my faith won't be shattered for I am strong in faith in the Lord Jesus.

You confuse obstinance with conviction.

Putting your fingers in your ears and scrunching your eyes shut is hardly a show of faith.

You confuse obstinance with conviction.

Putting your fingers in your ears and scrunching your eyes shut is hardly a show of faith.

My faith will not diminish because you do not want to hear the Truth of he Lord.

I have given myself fully to the Lord Jesus. If this bothers you well I am sorry.

Part of what makes us human is our independence of will and thought. We don't live in hives as drones and queens, we interact as fully capable individuals. To give that up requires absolute faith in your controller, and as much as I respect your choice to do so, it makes you seem less of a person and more of a tool.

I still have free will to do what I want.

But you haven't demonstrated that in your words. I have heard them from preachers and evangelists before, and they are as hollow when you say them as when they said them. They have no emotion or personality, only judgment and command, as from a superior to an inferior. That is not the way to appeal to another person to take you seriously.

The words I have used is how we as christians should live.
And what is that exactly? I challenge you to give an answer that is longer than one sentence, contains no Bible quotes, and does not defer the matter to God's will.

There is definitely free will in Christianity which is why there are so many interpretations (Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, ect...)

The Bible, as does the whole religion in general does accept there is suffering in the world and that life in this world will not be easy (particularly if you try and lead a good life. People will die but the belief is that people will live again in heaven.

Some may argue that's an attempt to make people feel better but IMO how does it make any more sense than just lying there thinking "I'm dead" to me I can't see how you can then just cease to be, time when you're unconcious just flies past without you noticing until you come round, that can't exactly happen forever as that would mean infinite time passing in what you would see as no time at all.

By not quoting I am trying to show that I can have thoughts individually aswell in the same way by opinions differ from those of fundermentalists (I don't disregard the Big bang or Evolution theories but consider God could have controlled them.)

As this can not be proved one way or another this topic will most likely continue to go around in circles.;)

I would not go around mocking the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. However I will forgive you for the remarks you have made for it is only when we forgive are we truly forgiven by Him.I do not mock your concept of God. However, if I am to treat your religion as something more that a delusion, I can only consider it a terrorist & an enslaver & torturer of humankind. As such, it is your religion - your god - that mocks me, and if I am to take that seriously, the only response I will ever have, is defiance.

Neither you, nor your God will ever intimidate me, and your pathetic attempts to do so, will only earn my scorn. I am not like your god, however, thus I will never butcher yolu, nor submit you to an eternity of torture - regardless of how much you provoke me.

I have ethics. Obviously neither you nor your god can say the same. I pitty you & loathe your religion. Poor slave.

It saddens Him when people reject Him and turn their backs on Him.

I saddens me that there "exists" such a pathetic deity that needs to be complimented and praised by humans to feel meaningful. But then again, your words only exist for you; the only person your words help is you by abetting the delusion you've set up for yourself.

But did you really have to pick such a lame cult?
(That's rhetoric, I'm sure you were raised and indoctrinated with it.)

your God

I think you meant "god."
I know it's a hard habit to break, given that we're raised in a society that encourages the latest cult of superhuman being worship, but you have to remember that there are plenty of other (and certainly more original) gods that exist in world mythology.
Deconstucting dogma comes from first deconstructing the language itself.

I think you meant "god."
I know it's a hard habit to break, given that we're raised in a society that encourages the latest cult of superhuman being worship, but you have to remember that there are plenty of other (and certainly more original) gods that exist in world mythology.
Deconstucting dogma comes from first deconstructing the language itself.Well, I did mean "your God". The capitalization indicates his particular deity. But yes, it's pathetic & obnoxious that the common word for deity now means one particular god.

Well, I did mean "your God". The capitalization indicates his particular deity. But yes, it's pathetic & obnoxious that the common word for deity now means one particular god.

That's because there is the only one true God.

The name God shows the belief that there is only one God I guess, which works in with my logic that if Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, ect all pray to one guy and as they all believe there is only one guy up there then surely he gets all their prayers.

That's because there is the only one true God.If you're going to keep making definite claims, prove them. Or crawl back under your bridge.

If you're going to keep making definite claims, prove them. Or crawl back under your bridge.

I don't have to prove it because He has already proven it time and again. I know you are one of those that require proof but Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe.

If you're going to keep making definite claims, prove them. Or crawl back under your bridge.
It is his belief. He needn't prove it.

I don't have to prove it because He has already proven it time and again. I know you are one of those that require proof but Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe.


If that's the attitude God has then nobody that values truth and fact will want to be anywhere near God.

It is his belief. He needn't prove it.

It's his delusion.
I doubt he's even thought it over. He was probably indoctrinated with his crazy ideas, and since many people are a) really quite stupid, b) scared of the meaningless of existence, c) unwilling to actually question things, I doubt he'd even know where to start.

It is his belief. He needn't prove it.

Maybe...but I don't think he's the same person...Is he even thinking about his responses? Before it was religous rhetoric with some sort of presntability, and you could actually talk to him. Now it's like a Bible-o-matic.

If that's the attitude God has then nobody that values truth and fact will want to be anywhere near God.

Ya, a lot of Christians make their god sound really pathetic and unappealing.

If that's the attitude God has then nobody that values truth and fact will want to be anywhere near God.

And you call yourself a Catholic. God has proven time and again that he is the one and only God. He has proven through Moses, through David, through Elijah and the rest of the prophets. He has proven it in Jesus Christ as well.

He will be proving it again when he Raptures His church.

Maybe...but I don't think he's the same person...Is he even thinking about his responses? Before it was religous rhetoric with some sort of presntability, and you could actually talk to him. Now it's like a Bible-o-matic.

Hence why I thought he was joking.
I still do: either way he's loony.

Maybe...but I don't think he's the same person...Is he even thinking about his responses? Before it was religous rhetoric with some sort of presntability, and you could actually talk to him. Now it's like a Bible-o-matic.

That's what's been bothering me, too. He used to evidence emotion and humor, but now it's like he's just copy/pasting his responses from the Bible and what he's been told in Church.

You know, even if there were a god, that wouldn't tell you much. Just that god exists.

Maybe...but I don't think he's the same person...Is he even thinking about his responses? Before it was religous rhetoric with some sort of presntability, and you could actually talk to him. Now it's like a Bible-o-matic.
It is because our faith comes under constant attack, even when we do not provoke it. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where the opinions of others are irrelevant to me. I tell them to tie themselves to a rock and go drown or something. I agree that he is too literal in his beliefs, but I do not fault him for being Christian.

You know, even if there were a god, that wouldn't tell you much. Just that god exists.

Exactly. Why do all these people think that perfect celestial beings need their useless praise? (Rhetoric: they don't really think that. Belief isn't about thinking; it's about self-deluding.)

It's his delusion.
I doubt he's even thought it over. He was probably indoctrinated with his crazy ideas, and since many people are a) really quite stupid, b) scared of the meaningless of existence, c) unwilling to actually question things, I doubt he'd even know where to start.
I wonder why you would think that a person who possesses rationality cannot possess faith? I most certainly possess both characteristics. He is indeed to convinced of the Bible's literal truth, but I am not going to scold him for it.

And you call yourself a Catholic. God has proven time and again that he is the one and only God. He has proven through Moses, through David, through Elijah and the rest of the prophets. He has proven it in Jesus Christ as well.

He will be proving it again when he Raptures His church.

I'm not a Catholic. I hate all forms of religion and belief.:rolleyes:


It's not 'proof' you fool. It's questionable historical evidence.

The point I'm making is that if God want's me to accept his existence as fact without compelling evidence, without what I consider to be beyond reasonable doubt, then I view God as evil. And I rather hate evil.

[People do not speak the truth, they witness it.
When you witness to people, you are still using words to spread the Good News.
You do realise that response is irrelevant to what I said?

[
You do realise that response is irrelevant to what I said?

That's pretty much been the theme of the day for him.

Personally I believe the evidence of a God depends on your perception of such. If you believed that god exists to remove all hurt and sorrow from the faithful then no there is no god or goddess for that matter. However if you believe that a God exists to strengthen us and teach us through our sorrows and hurts then yes god exists and we are better for it. Now bare in mind you can just disregard all of this as the hokey words of a chick that worships nature as its own diety. Or you could listen and decide for yourself if I am right or not.

It is only through the Lord Jesus Christ that a person can get into the Kingdom of Heaven. God sent his Son to take away our sins through his blood when he died for us on the Cross. As it is written, For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son to die for us for whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

It is through Jesus that we are saved and through him that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven for it is He who has died for us and conquered death and sin.

The truth is there for those who are willing to hear it. He who have ears, let him hear for the truth will set you free.

You talk real big... but I was a Christian, and I'm left finding it wanting. All you are doing is preaching, and preaching only works on those easily convinced by rhetoric, or those that are hearing what they WANT to hear.

But, your 'arguments' just don't hold water if you are NOT willing to accept on blind faith alone.... Jesus preached ONLY to Jews. Jesus specifically admonishes his apostles NOT to minister to the Gentiles. It is not possible to reconcile the story we find in the very earliest texts (You know that all four Gospels have 'gained' text over the last 2000 years, right?) with this idea of UNIVERSAL salvation. Jesus didn't preach it.

The 'truth' as YOU see it, doesn't work for me... and I have heard it, and I am still willing to hear truth... and, I'm afraid, that makes your argument hollow rhetoric... and your 'truth' less than 'true'.

Fear not for the Lord is coming soon.

You realise people have been saying that for almost 2000 years, right?

I would not go around mocking the Lord Savior Jesus Christ. However I will forgive you for the remarks you have made for it is only when we forgive are we truly forgiven by Him.

YOU will forgive?

Someone has ideas above their station...

You realise people have been saying that for almost 2000 years, right?

Yes they have but no one knows when the Savior will return. Keep watch for we do not know when he will return. Not even Jesus knows when he's coming back. Only God knows this and the time is approaching.

YOU will forgive?

Someone has ideas above their station...

It has been written that we are to forgive those who have done us wrong for unless we do, we ourselves cannot be forgiven.

It is his belief. He needn't prove it.

He does if he wants it to be accepted as fact.

Otherwise, he's just yelling hollow-mouthed platitudes, no?

It is because our faith comes under constant attack, even when we do not provoke it. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where the opinions of others are irrelevant to me. I tell them to tie themselves to a rock and go drown or something. I agree that he is too literal in his beliefs, but I do not fault him for being Christian.

When you say "our faith", is that the Christian Faith?

The "go drown" thing seems like it would be hard to reconcile with a Christ-influenced mindset.

Don't get me wrong, I respect your right to defend yourself when attacked, that just seems a bit edged.

He does if he wants it to be accepted as fact.

Otherwise, he's just yelling hollow-mouthed platitudes, no?
If he is trying to convert or convince, then yes, maybe. If he is just stating his beliefs, then no.

I wonder why you would think that a person who possesses rationality cannot possess faith? I most certainly possess both characteristics. He is indeed to convinced of the Bible's literal truth, but I am not going to scold him for it.

I don't think its so much the Christianity itself, per se, but the circular and dogmatic presentation of it that he seems so limited to.

When you say "our faith", is that the Christian Faith?

The "go drown" thing seems like it would be hard to reconcile with a Christ-influenced mindset.
Indeed the Christian faith. I was being extreme. It does piss me off though to have people constantly criticising me for believing.

Don't get me wrong, I respect your right to defend yourself when attacked, that just seems a bit edged.
As I said, I was being extreme.

But when we die, we'll see who's right.
No, we won't. We'll be dead.
Perhaps you mean to say something other than "die".

Yes they have but no one knows when the Savior will return. Keep watch for we do not know when he will return. Not even Jesus knows when he's coming back. Only God knows this and the time is approaching.

Jesus doesn't know when he will return? Interesting view of the Trinity...

Christians have been promising the return of Christ for two thousand years, and he has singularly failed to prove them right. Since the 'evidence' consists of an old book, and a failure to appear, I don't find myself too worried about the imminence of his arrival.

I don't think its so much the Christianity itself, per se, but the circular and dogmatic presentation of it that he seems so limited to.
As I said, he is too dogmatic in my view. I am just used to hearing people harp on about how impossible it is to be both rational and faithful.

It has been written that we are to forgive those who have done us wrong for unless we do, we ourselves cannot be forgiven.

Unless you are now claiming to BE Christ, I'm not sure that blasphemy IS a sin against YOU. Certainly not something YOU can forgive.

Jesus doesn't know when he will return? Interesting view of the Trinity...

Christians have been promising the return of Christ for two thousand years, and he has singularly failed to prove them right. Since the 'evidence' consists of an old book, and a failure to appear, I don't find myself too worried about the imminence of his arrival.

When the signs begin to appear, you will know that his return is imminent.

Indeed the Christian faith. I was being extreme. It does piss me off though to have people constantly criticising me for believing.


As I said, I was being extreme.

I can sympathize with that. Its been a long time since I was a believer, but I remember a teacher used to tell me "Many are the sufferings of the righteous, but each time you allow your anger to be elicited, you injure your capacity to witness".

Course, then he'd throw a fit if our work wasn't finished...

Unless you are now claiming to BE Christ, I'm not sure that blasphemy IS a sin against YOU. Certainly not something YOU can forgive.

It is in the scriptures that we are to forgive those who have done us wrong so that we who believe in the Lord can have forgiveness from the Lord Savior.

If he is trying to convert or convince, then yes, maybe. If he is just stating his beliefs, then no.

But he is stating it as FACT.

When we claim things as 'fact', we should be prepared to defend them, no?

Example: I think Europa Maxima is a troll - wouldn't require empirical proof... it would be a personal belief.

Example: Europa Maxima IS a troll - requires proof.


Not that I think you are a troll... it's just an example.

But he is stating it as FACT.

When we claim things as 'fact', we should be prepared to defend them, no?

Example: I think Europa Maxima is a troll - wouldn't require empirical proof... it would be a personal belief.

Example: Europa Maxima IS a troll - requires proof.
Then I leave it to him to prove how these beliefs are fact. I myself make no such assertion.


Not that I think you are a troll... it's just an example.
Hmm...of course. ;)

I'm just interested in learning the religion... did God give mankind our cognitive skills like reason, instinct, creativity, abstractness, logic, and all the rest?

Is that what separates man from the rest of the "animals?"

There is only One God and His Son is Jesus Christ who was crucified on the Cross for us.
This is something you (and many other "christ"ians) need to address at some point:
Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship.

So have you thought VERY VERY carefully about what "God" is "saying" there?
I doesn't agree with "only one god" quite clearly. It demands exclusive worship. Perhaps a great many millions of people don't KNOW or UNDERSTAND what "exclusive" means, and why that part of the bible is written as such.
Further, by making "christ" out and following it, it's a clear defiance of same material above.
You really should consider it. Carefully.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/011.gif

As I said, he is too dogmatic in my view. I am just used to hearing people harp on about how impossible it is to be both rational and faithful.



Well, I don't think cogent thinking necessarily precludes faith (although when the two conflict, I prefer thought to prevail).

But to be fair, people like Corneliu seem to provide the most material from which to infer that there exists at least some kinds of faith that might hinder salient deliberation.

When the signs begin to appear, you will know that his return is imminent.

They've been saying THAT for two thousand years, too. Indeed - they have been claiming we are 'living in end times' for two thousand years...

Knock yourself out on it if you wish... but I'm no more caught up in your apocalypse cult, than I am in any of the others... those that predate Christianity, or those that are modern artifacts.

I'm just interested in learning the religion... did God give mankind our cognitive skills like reason, instinct, creativity, abstractness, logic, and all the rest?

Is that what separates man from the rest of the "animals?"

You are indeed correct.

It is in the scriptures that we are to forgive those who have done us wrong so that we who believe in the Lord can have forgiveness from the Lord Savior.

And, again - unless YOU are Christ, blasphemy is not a sin against YOU, and it is not yours to forgive.

Hmm...of course. ;)

Seriously - I was just looking for something that would 'personalise' it for you, and relate to our debate... or, in this case, to HOW we debate.

Well, I don't think cogent thinking necessarily precludes faith (although when the two conflict, I prefer thought to prevail).
I am of the same belief. Hence, I don't take the Bible's every word as literal truth. I do, however, believe in God and the central aspects of Jesus' teachings.

But to be fair, people like Corneliu seem to provide the most material from which to infer that there exists at least some kinds of faith that might hinder salient deliberation.
If it is how he chooses to believe, so be it I suppose. To me, logic is as important as my faith.

Repeating dogma, as you say, is not what I am doing for the Truth is what I am saying.
And when Gauthier, Stephen Colbert and i hear you saying it, we touch ourselves.
:D



*couldn't resist*

They've been saying THAT for two thousand years, too. Indeed - they have been claiming we are 'living in end times' for two thousand years...

Knock yourself out on it if you wish... but I'm no more caught up in your apocalypse cult, than I am in any of the others... those that predate Christianity, or those that are modern artifacts.

When God defends the State of Israel from her Neighbor to the North, you will know that He will be coming shortly.

Seriously - I was just looking for something that would 'personalise' it for you, and relate to our debate... or, in this case, to HOW we debate.
I know. Hence the smily. I don't use those much...well, except for the rolling eyes one.

God is capable of doing anything and he knows everything, no ifs, ands, or buts, right? There's not a thing he cannot do, and not a thing he does not know?

I am of the same belief. Hence, I don't take the Bible's every word as literal truth. I do, however, believe in God and the central aspects of Jesus' teachings.

If it is how he chooses to believe, so be it I suppose. To me, logic is as important as my faith.

That makes you the kind of religious person that enriches the world.

Corneliu, on the other hand, is so fervently commited to his "script", he might do some of the other things described in scripture, like the murder of the children of your enemies, or killing first born children to punish a political leader for not doing what you want, or killing a child for being disobedient, or killing a woman for not crying out when she was raped, those kinds of things.

I have great respect for anyone who diligently and genuinely pursues the ideas of mercy, forgiveness, charity, and love. But the people who mix all that with so much blood and threats (i.e. if you don't believe as I tell you, you will be tortured forever), they pollute it.

When God defends the State of Israel from her Neighbor to the North, you will know that He will be coming shortly.

Preaching to the perverted, my friend... I know your scripture better than most of your denomination, I'd imagine.

Does it make sense to you that you are arguing Jesus could 'return at any time'... but you also argue there will be 'omens' of his coming?

And, again - unless YOU are Christ, blasphemy is not a sin against YOU, and it is not yours to forgive.

Matthew 18:35 "That's what my heavenly father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.

In verse 21 "Then Peter came to him and asked. 'Lord how often should I forgive somone who sisns against me? Seven Times?'"

Jesus replies in verse 22 "No, not seven times," Jesus replied, "but seventy times sevens!"

In the parable of the Unforgiven Debtor, a servent's debt was forgiven but the servent refused to forgive a fellow servent's debt. In verses 31-35 it says "When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said 'you evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn't you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?' Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt. That's what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart."

As you can see, my forgiveness of him was from my heart. I forgive those who have done me wrong. I am not blaspheming at all for it is written that we need to forgive in order to be forgiven.

I will use the words that God gives me.
Me too!
Like, oh ... uhm ...

Eloi, eloi ... lama sabachthani.

*sportin' the T-shirt*

That makes you the kind of religious person that enriches the world.
Vous etes gentils.

Corneliu, on the other hand, is so fervently commited to his "script", he might do some of the other things described in scripture, like the murder of the children of your enemies, or killing first born children to punish a political leader for not doing what you want, or killing a child for being disobedient, or killing a woman for not crying out when she was raped, those kinds of things.

I am wondering somewhat though if he isn't merely playing the devil's advocate.

I have great respect for anyone who diligently and genuinely pursues the ideas of mercy, forgiveness, charity, and love. But the people who mix all that with so much blood and threats (i.e. if you don't believe as I tell you, you will be tortured forever), they pollute it.
I am not a major fan of fundamentalists (or hypocrites, for that matter) myself either.

Matthew 18:35 "That's what my heavenly father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.

In verse 21 "Then Peter came to him and asked. 'Lord how often should I forgive somone who sisns against me? Seven Times?'"

Jesus replies in verse 22 "No, not seven times," Jesus replied, "but seventy times sevens!"

In the parable of the Unforgiven Debtor, a servent's debt was forgiven but the servent refused to forgive a fellow servent's debt. In verses 31-35 it says "When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said 'you evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn't you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?' Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt. That's what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart."

As you can see, my forgiveness of him was from my heart. I forgive those who have done me wrong. I am not blaspheming at all for it is written that we need to forgive in order to be forgiven.

I didn't say YOU were blaspheming. Try reading my posts.

YOU claimed YOU were forgiving the other poster for blasphemy.

YOU cannot forgive the sin of blasphemy. It is a sin against god, not against you.

Straughn: That is where the Holy Trinity comes in. There is ONE God, but He has three distinct part. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When the Bible refers to One it uses the word "echad" which is like saying one nation. It refers to a specific group. So God is the Three in One. That is why it says in Genesis "Let us make man in our image" So to worship Jesus Christ is to worship the One God and thus does not violate the commandment. These three Persons are the only scriptural Persons of god and therefore to worship anyone else does violate it. Hope that helps you understand how Christians can worship Jesus and God, He is God.

Wormia: Yes God did give us all those things. And they do seperate us from the animals, but it is also our eternal soul that seperates us. When we die we will be in the afterlife. If we accepted Christ we will live eternally with Him in Heaven if not then there is Hell.

Saint Curie: It goes beyond just believe as we do or be tortured forever. I truly desire that none would experience that and God desires all to be saved as well. So why do people go to Hell? It is because of sin. God is a holy God or you could say He is a bright light. We are sinful or a black darkness. If sin comes into the presence of holiness or darkness into light it is destroyed. Thus we can't be with God. Jesus came to bridge that gap and to make us holy. It's not a mean God condeming us it is a good God saving us.

That makes you the kind of religious person that enriches the world.

Corneliu, on the other hand, is so fervently commited to his "script", he might do some of the other things described in scripture, like the murder of the children of your enemies, or killing first born children to punish a political leader for not doing what you want, or killing a child for being disobedient, or killing a woman for not crying out when she was raped, those kinds of things.

You realize that this last paragraph is from the old testiment (excluding the politician thing)

God is capable of doing anything and he knows everything, no ifs, ands, or buts, right? There's not a thing he cannot do, and not a thing he does not know?

Question 1: right.

Question 2: right.

Saint Curie: It goes beyond just believe as we do or be tortured forever. I truly desire that none would experience that and God desires all to be saved as well. So why do people go to Hell? It is because of sin. God is a holy God or you could say He is a bright light. We are sinful or a black darkness. If sin comes into the presence of holiness or darkness into light it is destroyed. Thus we can't be with God. Jesus came to bridge that gap and to make us holy. It's not a mean God condeming us it is a good God saving us.
Hell is distance from God. Satan lures others to join him in his misery. One who lives a good life (be they Christian or not) can approach God.

Yes. However removing them for that reason is to put words in Jesus' mouth yourself.
Guilty as charged - something like "WElcome to jamaica ... have a Nice DaY"
... in invisible ink.
...always havin' to get the last word in. :D

I didn't say YOU were blaspheming. Try reading my posts.

YOU claimed YOU were forgiving the other poster for blasphemy.

YOU cannot forgive the sin of blasphemy. It is a sin against god, not against you.

Ah. We just had a slight communication problem here. I didn't saw him as mocking and not blaspheming. *shrugs* sorry.

Hell is distance from God. Satan lures others to join him in his misery. One who lives a good life (be they Christian or not) can approach God.

This is indeed correct :)

Straughn: That is where the Holy Trinity comes in. There is ONE God, but He has three distinct part. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When the Bible refers to One it uses the word "echad" which is like saying one nation. It refers to a specific group. So God is the Three in One. That is why it says in Genesis "Let us make man in our image" So to worship Jesus Christ is to worship the One God and thus does not violate the commandment. These three Persons are the only scriptural Persons of god and therefore to worship anyone else does violate it. Hope that helps you understand how Christians can worship Jesus and God, He is God.
So from your quote, "God" is asking you NOT to worship the "son" or the "holy spirit." Again, consider the "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" quote that is quite clearly in the new testament- and quite clearly makes the distinction of identity between Jesus and "god".
As for the "trinity", funny how they had to make a "new testament" to make that mentality fit. Ask, for example, a few Jewish folk if that's really true or not.
And then ask why there still exists a very strong Jewish population - as the chosen people - while the "christians" continue to contend their angle on things. Also, that Jesus WAS a practicing Jew.
You still haven't dealt with the issue i brought up anyway, but thanks for trying to help.

So uh...

Is it wrong for people to base their universal idealogy on empirical evidence? Science, the like?

So uh...

Is it wrong for people to base their universal idealogy on empirical evidence? Science, the like?

To quote another one of my favorite verses, "Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe."

I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is nice to have but science cannot explain everything and there are somethings you just have to believe without evidence.

To quote another one of my favorite verses, "Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe."

None of the bullshit. Is it, or isn't it wrong?

None of the bullshit. Is it, or isn't it wrong?

You didn't let me have time to edit my post.

I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is nice to have but science cannot explain everything and there are somethings you just have to believe without evidence.
Agreed.

I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is nice to have but science cannot explain everything...

Not yet, perhaps. But historically speaking, science has shown a pattern of eventually being able to explain things which, in times past, were unexplainable. Thunderstorms, seasons, planetary movement... etc.

...and there are somethings you just have to believe without evidence.

Some, actually, a lot of people disagree with you on that point. No one "has" to believe anything without evidence, because a lot of people simply do not believe in it. If they don't truly, honestly believe, who are you to force your opinion onto them? It's their free will, no?

Not yet, perhaps. But historically speaking, science has shown a pattern of eventually being able to explain things which, in times past, were unexplainable. Thunderstorms, seasons, planetary movement... etc.

They used various weather to mark the beginning of seasons. They already knew about planetary movement for it is in other folklore.

Some, actually, a lot of people disagree with you on that point. No one "has" to believe anything without evidence, because a lot of people simply do not believe in it.

And I never stated it was wrong now did I?

If they don't truly, honestly believe, who are you to force your opinion onto them? It's their free will, no?

Your right. It is their free will. I'm just concerned about where they are going to go at the end of their lives.

Not yet, perhaps. But historically speaking, science has shown a pattern of eventually being able to explain things which, in times past, were unexplainable. Thunderstorms, seasons, planetary movement... etc.
You do realise, however, that there are certain things (e.g. God) that science may never be able to discover, no matter how much it grows in sophistication? Thus, it may forever remain a question of belief.

You do realise, however, that there are certain things (e.g. God) that science may never be able to discover, no matter how much it grows in sophistication? Thus, it may forever remain a question of belief.

Yep. Hence Science cannot explain everything. :)

You realize that this last paragraph is from the old testiment (excluding the politician thing)

You evidently don't realize that the New Testament God claims to also be the Old Testament God, and so needs to take some responsibility for what the OT God ordered. Please learn your religion.

You evidently don't realize that the New Testament God claims to also be the Old Testament God, and so needs to take some responsibility for what the OT God ordered. Please learn your religion.

Oh I know my religion. I was pointing out to you that it was the Old Testiment (meaning the Old Covenant) that you were referring too.

Wow. 537 people are going to hell :p

To quote another one of my favorite verses, "Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe."

I wouldn't say it is wrong. It is nice to have but science cannot explain everything and there are somethings you just have to believe without evidence.

Commonly known as "conjecture", or less euphemistically, "making things up as you want them".

So, if its okay for you to believe in your religion without evidence, why isn't it just as valid for others to believe in Islam, Hinduism, or Scientology? Their lack of evidence is just as good as yours.

Wow. 537 people are going to hell :p

Well, It's only a few minutes away, I could go if I wanted.
...
We are talking about Hell, Michigan, right?

Commonly known as "conjecture", or less euphemistically, "making things up as you want them".

So, if its okay for you to believe in your religion without evidence, why isn't it just as valid for others to believe in Islam, Hinduism, or Scientology? Their lack of evidence is just as good as yours.

Because the Lord Savior Jesus Christ died on the Cross for all of our sins so that when we come to know Jesus, we are forgiven with his blood.

You evidently don't realize that the New Testament God claims to also be the Old Testament God, and so needs to take some responsibility for what the OT God ordered. Please learn your religion.
Succinct ... perhaps this is one of those "reach-around" posts i was talking about. ;)

Oh I know my religion. I was pointing out to you that it was the Old Testiment (meaning the Old Covenant) that you were referring too.

So, under your God's "Old Covenant", it was okay for Him to order the murder of children, to order the death of a woman for being raped without screaming?

And your God escapes responsibility by having a "New Covenant", changing the rules of right and wrong, so you can pretend the earlier atrocities never happened?

Tell me, if on Tuesday I murder somebody, and on Wednesday I say I won't be murdering people anymore, should I be excused from trial?

So, if its okay for you to believe in your religion without evidence, why isn't it just as valid for others to believe in Islam, Hinduism, or Scientology? Their lack of evidence is just as good as yours.
Yes it is. So what?

Because the Lord Savior Jesus Christ died on the Cross for all of our sins so that when we come to know Jesus, we are forgiven with his blood.

Tell me you at least understand that restating the belief doesn't actually support it.

The Muslims believe that the revelation to Mohammed is the way to Paradise, and they believe it just as fervently, and with just as much evidence, as you.

You believe yours, they believe theirs. They have evidence and emphasism equal to yours. Why is yours any different? (and remember that restating the axiom itself in no way provides any support).

Their lack of evidence is just as good as yours.
"My opinion is as valid as any scientist's." - Rep. Don Young -R., on current facts ignored by him regarding the global warming/climate change situation. Note that he has no scientific experience to speak of.

Because the Lord Savior Jesus Christ died on the Cross for all of our sins so that when we come to know Jesus, we are forgiven with his blood.

Is it just me, or did that not answer the question?

So, under your God's "Old Covenant", it was okay for Him to order the murder of children, to order the death of a woman for being raped without screaming?

Who am I to question the punishment from God?

And your God escapes responsibility by having a "New Covenant", changing the rules of right and wrong, so you can pretend the earlier atrocities never happened?

What precisely has changed? The only major change was salvation as it goes through the Lord Savior Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins so that those who believe in him will not perish.

Tell me, if on Tuesday I murder somebody, and on Wednesday I say I won't be murdering people anymore, should I be excused from trial?

Nope.

Tell me you at least understand that restating the belief doesn't actually support it.

The Muslims believe that the revelation to Mohammed is the way to Paradise, and they believe it just as fervently, and with just as much evidence, as you.

You believe yours, they believe theirs. They have evidence and emphasism equal to yours. Why is yours any different? (and remember that restating the axiom itself in no way provides any support).
*hands Saint Curie a nail ... crucifix-type, perhaps*
*attempts to hold Jell-O mold still against wall*
*cringes*

There is only One God and His Son is Jesus Christ who was crucified on the Cross for us.

Yes, but that's what the other religions say as well.

Who am I to question the punishment from God?
Obviously, you are the punished. The subject. Job, perhaps (perhaps not).

Yes it is. So what?

So, if you look back through the thread, Corneliu presents his religion as the only valid one, but we now establish that this "belief without evidence" supports other religions just as much.

See the issue?

Yes, but that's what the other religions say as well.

Actually the Muslims say that Allah's prophet was crucified. Not all religions proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God. Actually, it is only Christianity that proclaims this for the Jewish faith have rejected Jesus as his Son.

The Muslims believe that the revelation to Mohammed is the way to Paradise, and they believe it just as fervently, and with just as much evidence, as you.

You believe yours, they believe theirs. They have evidence and emphasism equal to yours. Why is yours any different? (and remember that restating the axiom itself in no way provides any support).
A Muslim has as much faith as me, and in the same God. I cannot castigate them for that, even if I disagree, because I could be wrong too, and it would be hypocritical to fight over it.

Tell me, if on Tuesday I murder somebody, and on Wednesday I say I won't be murdering people anymore, should I be excused from trial?
Corneliu, I'm going to disagree with you on this one. If a person repents of a sin, it is washed clean. That's very clear in Jesus' teaching. The problem is that we, as non-telepathic human beings, cannot know whether a person is sincere about their repentance. That knowledge is limited to the person and God.

Obviously, you are the punished. The subject. Job, perhaps (perhaps not).

And yet Job held on to his faith in God despite his torment.

Who am I to question the punishment from God?


Somebody who keeps trying to sell us on believing in it. Maybe if people were a little more willing to question the atrocities that God is written to have called for, fewer of them would happen.


What precisely has changed? The only major change was salvation as it goes through the Lord Savior Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins so that those who believe in him will not perish.

Precisely, according to you, the "Covenant" has changed, which you now feel excludes those previously cited examples of killing women, butchering children, and punishing some for the sins of others.

May I remind you that it was YOU that tried to imply that this change in "Covenant" excused your God for those things? Now you ask what has changed?


Nope.

Then why does the New Testament God not have to take responsibility for what He ordered in the Old Testament?

Corneliu, I'm going to disagree with you on this one. If a person repents of a sin, it is washed clean. That's very clear in Jesus' teaching. The problem is that we, as non-telepathic human beings, cannot know whether a person is sincere about their repentance. That knowledge is limited to the person and God.

When a person commits a crime here on earth, he will be punished by the law of the land. Only God knows if repentance was genuine or not but that does not excuse the criminal from the justice system even if his repentence is sincere or not.

So, if you look back through the thread, Corneliu presents his religion as the only valid one, but we now establish that this "belief without evidence" supports other religions just as much.

See the issue?

Yes, and that is why I dismiss any religion which proclaims that other religions must be vanquished-- logically, a religion which accepts other religions is far more likely to be correct than an intolerant one. There are thousands and thousands of religions and cults and sects that declare themselves the "True Believers" and assert that everyone else must agree with them. However, not more than one of them can be correct. But any religion which does not attempt to put down other religions can exist alongside that other one without any contradiction.

Only God knows if repentance was genuine or not but that does not excuse the criminal from the justice system even if his repentence is sincere or not.
No, it doesn't excuse the criminal, but should it?

Let's presume that we can know whether a person sincerely repents: if they do, then according to Jesus, they are no longer deserving of any punishment. So why should we gainsay God's forgiveness? What does putting a person in jail or executing them fix, if they have already repented?

A Muslim has as much faith as me, and in the same God. I cannot castigate them for that, even if I disagree, because I could be wrong too, and it would be hypocritical to fight over it.

So, if somebody had as much faith, but in a different God, such as Brahma or Zeus, could you castigate them?

My point is, do you find non-Christian, or even non-Abrahamic religions to be as valid as yours?


Corneliu, I'm going to disagree with you on this one. If a person repents of a sin, it is washed clean. That's very clear in Jesus' teaching. The problem is that we, as non-telepathic human beings, cannot know whether a person is sincere about their repentance. That knowledge is limited to the person and God.

Which leaves us with a situation where a rapist can repent and go scott-free, but somebody who carved a graven idol of their ancestors in accordance with their tribal religious beliefs will be tortured forever.

Yes, and that is why I dismiss any religion which proclaims that other religions must be vanquished-- logically, a religion which accepts other religions is far more likely to be correct than an intolerant one.

So, Corneliu was clearly taking the position that no other religion is valid. Why did you then ask "So what?" if you see my objection as valid?



There are thousands and thousands of religions and cults and sects that declare themselves the "True Believers" and assert that everyone else must agree with them. However, not more than one of them can be correct. But any religion which does not attempt to put down other religions can exist alongside that other one without any contradiction.

Except doctrinal contradiction, which is what is being addressed.

Again, Corneliu states his religion is the only valid one, and supports his beliefs deliberately without evidence (aside from a book that he believes is true because it says its true).

It is vital to point out that this kind of fallacious position does not establish his religion as the "true" one.

So, Corneliu was clearly taking the position that no other religion is valid. Why did you then ask "So what?" if you see my objection as valid?

Are you 100% sure that is my real position?

Yes, and that is why I dismiss any religion which proclaims that other religions must be vanquished-- logically, a religion which accepts other religions is far more likely to be correct than an intolerant one. There are thousands and thousands of religions and cults and sects that declare themselves the "True Believers" and assert that everyone else must agree with them. However, not more than one of them can be correct. But any religion which does not attempt to put down other religions can exist alongside that other one without any contradiction.


No, it doesn't excuse the criminal, but should it?

Let's presume that we can know whether a person sincerely repents: if they do, then according to Jesus, they are no longer deserving of any punishment. So why should we gainsay God's forgiveness? What does putting a person in jail or executing them fix, if they have already repented?

Anglachel, I know its a pain, but could you label your quotes when you quote two different people?

Your last post makes it seem that the bit about repentance comes from me, when it was actually from Corneliu. Thanks. :)

Are you 100% sure that is my real position?

Well, I can't even be 100% sure you exist, but I imagine it's close enough, yeah.

Are you 100% sure that is my real position?

Well, lets see you've said:

That's because there is the only one true God.

You've also said that Jews don't have the "Truth" because they don't believe in Jesus, and you've said the only way to be saved is through Christ.

So, I guess you allow all sorts of religions, as long as their all Christian.

So, if somebody had as much faith, but in a different God, such as Brahma or Zeus, could you castigate them?

My point is, do you find non-Christian, or even non-Abrahamic religions to be as valid as yours?
In some cases, I do find them to be equally valid (this does not mean that I personally subscribe to those religions, naturally). I largely decide based on teaching--any religion that preaches hate and violence is one which I dismiss--since actions speak a hell of a lot louder than words. A person's actions are the truest measure of what they believe.

Well, lets see you've said:



You've also said that Jews don't have the "Truth" because they don't believe in Jesus, and you've said the only way to be saved is through Christ.

So, I guess you allow all sorts of religions, as long as their all Christian.

Please show me where I said that the Jews don't hold the truth please for I know I did nto say that.

Actually the Muslims say that Allah's prophet was crucified. Not all religions proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God. Actually, it is only Christianity that proclaims this for the Jewish faith have rejected Jesus as his Son.

That's not what I meant.
I meant that all religions have a core belief, and I wonder what makes yours more valid.

it depends on what your perception if 'god' is...

i don't agree with the perception that 'god' is a creature or entity in whose image we have been miraculously 'made'; that 'god' is an entity with all-forgiving intent or omnipotent power.

if you choose to percieve 'god' as everything and all; as the forces at work; the forces which shape us and everything about us, such as physics or magnetics or even 'love' -then yeah, i could agree

there is no 'god' to whom one might hope to call to for help because 'mother nature' is science and science can't pull itself together with will to carry out a miracle salvation.

In some cases, I do find them to be equally valid (this does not mean that I personally subscribe to those religions, naturally). I largely decide based on teaching--any religion that preaches hate and violence is one which I dismiss--since actions speak a hell of a lot louder than words. A person's actions are the truest measure of what they believe.

So, you seem to be able to get along with others, which is great, but your missing what we're talking about.

Corneliu believes his God is the only true God, as a matter of doctrine. His support for that is, in his own words, "belief without evidence".

He wants us to believe his doctrine is true, and we're trying to explain that belief without evidence supports any conceivable doctrine equally, so there is no compelling support for his doctrine and willingness to subscribe thereto.

I don't believe in God.

There could possibly be a higher power. I don't know.

Offically, I vote Maybe.

WHY DIDN'T YOU INCLUDE MAYBE!!!

Corneliu, I think it was an inference derived from your postulate that the only way to be saved is through Jesus, and then since Jews by and large do not believe in Jesus, they will not be saved.


The only way to guarantee that you will be 100% correct is to be agnostic: In reality, you cannot know for absolute certain that God exists (or, conversely, that she doesn't), and in the end whether there is a God or not you will be right in saying that that is a thing beyond the scope of your knowledge.

Please show me where I said that the Jews don't hold the truth please for I know I did nto say that.

"Actually, it is only Christianity that proclaims this for the Jewish faith have rejected Jesus as his Son."

And since, according to you, only Jesus is the way to salvation, that would make Jews untruthly in your eyes, correct?

Corneliu, I think it was an inference derived from your postulate that the only way to be saved is through Jesus, and then since Jews by and large do not believe in Jesus, they will not be saved.

So what I said was correct! I didn't say that the Jews don't hold the truth. They knew what the truth is.

Please show me where I said that the Jews don't hold the truth please for I know I did nto say that.

You've said Jesus is the "Truth" and you've said:

Actually, it is only Christianity that proclaims this for the Jewish faith have rejected Jesus as his Son.

But by all means, ignore the Jewish issue. You said this:

That's because there is the only one true God.

Now you try to backpedal out of implying that your religion is the only valid one?

Tell me, Corneliu, what religion other than Christianity do you believe is valid?
Because so far, you've left me more sure than ever about your position on religion.

"Actually, it is only Christianity that proclaims this for the Jewish faith have rejected Jesus as his Son."

And since, according to you, only Jesus is the way to salvation, that would make Jews untruthly in your eyes, correct?

But thay is different from "Jews don't have the 'Truth'". The Jews do know the truth.

But thay is different from "Jews don't have the 'Truth'". The Jews do know the truth.

Then do they just deny it or what? I don't entirely understand what you're saying here...

But thay is different from "Jews don't have the 'Truth'". The Jews do know the truth.

But they don't have it, they discarded it.

So what I said was correct! I didn't say that the Jews don't hold the truth. They knew what the truth is.

What "truth"?

Are you saying that all Jews really believe that Jesus is the Truth, they're just rejecting him?

You can't even understand that maybe, just maybe, a substantial (perhaps even majorative) portion of Jews don't believe in Jesus?

Again, you've claimed Jesus is the "Truth", and you've said the Jews reject him. Now you're saying the "knew what the truth is".

Oh, Moses...

Then do they just deny it or what? I don't entirely understand what you're saying here...

The rejected it unfortunately. Or maybe fortunately. Depends on how you want to look at that issue.

But they don't have it, they discarded it.

And what about the Messiahnic Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

The rejected it unfortunately. Or maybe fortunately. Depends on how you want to look at that issue.

Corneliu, do you consider Judaism a True religion, including its absence of Jesus?

And again, do you consider any religion other than Christianity to be the True Religion?

And please make your answers "100%" as you put it.

And what about the Messiahnic Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

And what about the Mormons, who believe that God has cousins?

Corneliu, why is it so hard for you to admit that you believe yours is the only valid religion?

And what about the Messiahnic Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

I don't know. What's your point?

I don't know. What's your point?

That not all Jews rejected Christ.

And yet Job held on to his faith in God despite his torment.
Read that part a little bit harder, Corny. Hate to disappoint you, but the end was an ADDENDUM.
The parable requires god to exist independent of faith. Indeed, that test was a wager between god and "satan" (or whatever flavour you have for him), at the cost of mortal peril, and when Job asked about, "god" did some major cocksmacking. No love. Just threats. Job cowered for fear of his life, not faith.
Read it again.

That not all Jews rejected Christ.

So, again, are the Jews that don't accept Christ a valid religion?

Is any religion that does not believe in Jesus a "True Religion"?

Corneliu, do you consider Judaism a True religion, including its absence of Jesus?

I consider it a religion yes. My roommate next semester is Jewish and he and I get along wonderfully well. Not to mention my gf's dad has a jewish background.

And again, do you consider any religion other than Christianity to be the True Religion?

I consider them religions. Religions I respect.

it's pretty scary that 48 percent have actually voted 'yes'... oaft.

the 'god' thing is used to control the masses, tis how it became popular and it'll stay the same until we evolve as a life form to embrace our own lives and those around us.

Thats right, there is no safety net, all we have is the time we are here...

oh no! that means we have to start...like...living....? AAAAHAHAHAA!!!!

Read that part a little bit harder, Corny. Hate to disappoint you, but the end was an ADDENDUM.
The parable requires god to exist independent of faith. Indeed, that test was a wager between god and "satan" (or whatever flavour you have for him), at the cost of mortal peril, and when Job asked about, "god" did some major cocksmacking. No love. Just threats. Job cowered for fear of his life, not faith.
Read it again.

Why do I get the feeling that Corneliu might not be equipped for this level of scriptural discourse...

Then why does the New Testament God not have to take responsibility for what He ordered in the Old Testament?
$25,000 question.

I suppose it's because god was huffin' nitrus in those days, and expects people to heed his word and not his deed. That whole "you can't judge, only me" infantile bullsh*t.
Fickle as hell. Competing with other gods at the time.

That not all Jews rejected Christ.

And?

I consider it a religion yes. My roommate next semester is Jewish and he and I get along wonderfully well. Not to mention my gf's dad has a jewish background.



I consider them religions. Religions I respect.

Do you consider it a True religion? Doctrinally true?

In short, is a belief in a religion without Jesus just as True as your belief?

Do you consider it a True religion? Doctrinally true?

In short, is a belief in a religion without Jesus just as True as your belief?

If it makes them happy, then who am I to judge them?

And what about the Mormons, who believe that God has cousins?

Corneliu, why is it so hard for you to admit that you believe yours is the only valid religion?


hehe, mormons are so cute, they crack me up. :p

$25,000 question.

I suppose it's because god was huffin' nitrus in those days, and expects people to heed his word and not his deed. That whole "you can't judge, only me" infantile bullsh*t.
Fickle as hell. Competing with other gods at the time.

Heh, its like a koan or something..."Can God grow a weed so potent, even He gets high off His ass and can't handle the buzz?"


So, lets ask the question again, because Corneliu didn't really address it.

Corneliu, why does the New Testament God not have to take responsibility for what He ordered in the Old Testament Covenant, including the killing of women for not screaming during rape, the butchery of children for being on the wrong side of the war, and so forth?

Why do I get the feeling that Corneliu might not be equipped for this level of scriptural discourse...
....AND, it's the "oldest" book in the new compendium! :eek:

To be fair, "christians" don't actually respect the old testament, since Jesus never fulfilled all the obligations of the old testament to the messiah nature (even if he/Horus/Mithra WAS a pretty decent individual)
They are worshipping a fantasy, evidenced IN MANY WAYS by the bullsh*t from "Revelation" :rolleyes: mixed w/a lil' bit o' Daniel. And of course, historic misinterpretation/representation. And the whole "new covenant" excuse.

If it makes them happy, then who am I to judge them?


well your the king of the universe corny!!

well your the king of the universe corny!!

That i most assuredly am not.

Corneliu, why is it so hard for you to admit that you believe yours is the only valid religion?
Because that's not a politically correct view to take, and we are conditioned to make what we believe appear to fit within political correctness.


By the way, Straughn, I'm just going to say that I think your interpretation of Job is a little different than mine... God never threatened Job. Granted, he became angry at Job's friends Eliphaz and Bildad and Sophar for their expressions of disbelief, but there was nowhere in the book of Job where he threatened Job himself.

If it makes them happy, then who am I to judge them?

You do know how starkly vivid it is to everyone that you're dodging the question, right?

And as far as judging them, you've said that anybody who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to die and go to hell. Do you or do you not agree with your God's policy, there?

So, the question again:

Do you consider a religion without Jesus to be a True religion?

(By the way, how evasive would a person have to be before they were essentially bearing false witness?)

That i most assuredly am not.


Yes you are! get some confidance. you can believe, blindly, in some aparently omni-everything fella wi his finger on the button ( now that works several ways ;) ) but you can't even believe in yourself?

Poor little fella :(

You do know how starkly vivid it is to everyone that you're dodging the question, right?

And as far as judging them, you've said that anybody who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to die and go to hell. Do you or do you not agree with your God's policy, there?

So, the question again:

Do you consider a religion without Jesus to be a True religion?

(By the way, how evasive would a person have to be before they were essentially bearing false witness?)


Conry: 'yeah well im off to bed, night folks! *door slams, fast-paced footsteps fade out...*'

Everyone else: 'awwww what?!?! no waaay!'

They wouldn't necessarily be bearing false witness against their neighbor, though.

To be fair, "christians" don't actually respect the old testament, since Jesus never fulfilled all the obligations of the old testament to the messiah nature
Actually, most Christians I know do respect the Old Testament. One of my friends just gave a sermon last week on that very topic. And please specify which "obligations of the old testament to the messiah nature" Jesus did not fulfill.

By the way, Straughn, I'm just going to say that I think your interpretation of Job is a little different than mine... God never threatened Job. Granted, he became angry at Job's friends Eliphaz and Bildad and Sophar for their expressions of disbelief, but there was nowhere in the book of Job where he threatened Job himself.

It seems to me more that Job was very much threatened by (or afraid of, if you prefer) God. Job talks a great deal about the level of God's power, about the impossibility of contending with God. "For he breaketh me with a tempest, and mulitply my wounds without cause". Understandable to feel a bit threatened, and the OT is full of times where God demonstrates his ability to be threatening when angered.

They wouldn't necessarily be bearing false witness against their neighbor, though.


Actually, most Christians I know do respect the Old Testament. One of my friends just gave a sermon last week on that very topic. And please specify which "obligations of the old testament to the messiah nature" Jesus did not fulfill.

So then how do they reconcile with a God that orders the death of a woman who didn't scream when raped?

Or the death of children to punish a pharoah?

Or punishing children for the crimes of their fathers?

I am leary of anyone who can't see the inherent injustice in those things, even for a "Holy God" who justifies the unjustifiable through the needs of "holiness".

They wouldn't necessarily be bearing false witness against their neighbor, though.


So, I can lie to anybody who doesn't live next to me?

What's the difference in morality between bearing false witness and bearing false witness against a neighbor?

EDIT: Well, I'm going to grab something to nosh. Corneliu, questions are still on the table; fine chance to show your faith by addressing them.

So, I can lie to anybody who doesn't live next to me?

What's the difference in morality between bearing false witness and bearing false witness against a neighbor?

If you think that neighbor in a biblical context means only your "next door--" then you're not familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus makes quite clear that even your most hated enemy is your neighbor.

The morality difference is that one is more likely to harm another person than the other is.

That i most assuredly am not.
Hey that's up to the people ... a "benevolent dictatorship" you keep denying Bush is making the U.S. into ...

Should i vote for you?
*poll coming*

By the way, Straughn, I'm just going to say that I think your interpretation of Job is a little different than mine... God never threatened Job. Granted, he became angry at Job's friends Eliphaz and Bildad and Sophar for their expressions of disbelief, but there was nowhere in the book of Job where he threatened Job himself.He did indeed, by pointing out how many things he did (how many questions of authority and power were there?) and pointing out that Job had no right to ask. He arrived as a furious storm and made it clear he was party to his suffering. If god did that to you, you'd very likely be afraid as well.
Admittedly, we do indeed see them differently, apparently.

They wouldn't necessarily be bearing false witness against their neighbor, though.


Actually, most Christians I know do respect the Old Testament. One of my friends just gave a sermon last week on that very topic. And please specify which "obligations of the old testament to the messiah nature" Jesus did not fulfill.As for "respecting" the old testament - Saint Curie has already pointed out in this thread what i'm talking about.
As for messiah ...
Check out qualifications to the throne of David. And read carefully. And answer why there continues to be an intense and strong following of Judaism and not converts to "christianity".
The answers are already there. And i have a few archived. As well, you could ask Grave_n_idle for the short & sweet answer.

If you think that neighbor in a biblical context means only your "next door--" then you're not familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus makes quite clear that even your most hated enemy is your neighbor.

The morality difference is that one is more likely to harm another person than the other is.
Did you not just qualify that everyone is a neighbor, therefore bearing false witness against *ANYONE* would be the same as proximity? I'm a neighbor - and lying to me would be doing so, eh?

And btw, what did the people of those times know of the orient?


Dang, Saint Curie ran away. I have to too - i have a radio show for which, instead of preparing for, i've been here.

If you think that neighbor in a biblical context means only your "next door--" then you're not familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus makes quite clear that even your most hated enemy is your neighbor.

The morality difference is that one is more likely to harm another person than the other is.

So, then, why is evasiveness here not "bearing false witness against your neighbor", as you put it?

Please elaborate on the distinction that you're making with those italics, so I can understand why bearing false witness here would be okay, as its not "against your neighbor".

So then how do they reconcile with a God that orders the death of a woman who didn't scream when raped?

Or the death of children to punish a pharoah?

Or punishing children for the crimes of their fathers?

I am leary of anyone who can't see the inherent injustice in those things, even for a "Holy God" who justifies the unjustifiable through the needs of "holiness".
Your total argumentation is a complete fallacy.

You state that God does not exist. Therefore it would be logical to presume that to you, the Bible is totally ficticious?

Therefore, using the Bible to support your argument that God does not exist is totally illogical.

You complain of Corny's constant Bible offerings, yet you are the biggest Bible thumper going. You constanly cast God in the poorest of light, pointing out the errors of His ways.

The logical argumentation for the atheist would be to state that "God does not exist, the Bible is false, and I am neither going to Heaven or hell."

Of course the problem with that argumentation is that you cannot prove any of it.

He did indeed, by pointing out how many things he did (how many questions of authority and power were there?) and pointing out that Job had no right to ask. He arrived as a furious storm and made it clear he was party to his suffering. If god did that to you, you'd very likely be afraid as well.
Admittedly, we do indeed see them differently, apparently.

The storm happened when the 'bet' with Satan was at its close. And even before that, God didn't employ intimidation as a tactic.

About my comment on bearing false witness: I'm not trying to say that misleading people or obfuscating is right-- it isn't. I'm just saying that it's not within the scope of the particular Commandment which Saint Curie was referring to.

Bearing false witness against your neighbor does not refer to misleading them, it refers to making untrue statements which hurt other people-- slander and libel, basically. Accusing people of things they didn't do.

I used the italics to emphasize the part of the commandment which you left out.

Your total argumentation is a complete fallacy.


Argumentation? Great word. For a guy who believes in Pascal's Wager, you pointing at a fallacy is rich, but lets look at it.


You state that God does not exist. Therefore it would be logical to presume that to you, the Bible is totally ficticious?


I don't believe God exists, but the position at hand is Corneliu's belief that he does, and that the bible is true. The bible is thus fair game for examination.
If the Bible is true, God did those murderous things.


Therefore, using the Bible to support your argument that God does not exist is totally illogical.


You clearly have little formal training in logic. Pointing out the results of assuming a challenged premise to be true is precisely the foundation of many logical arguments, frequently called "argument by contradiction".

You demonstrate that, if the opposing position is true (in this case, the supposed literal truth of the bible), what things then follow from that premise. For example: If the Bible is true, God ordered the death of children for the crimes of someone else.


You complain of Corny's constant Bible offerings, yet you are the biggest Bible thumper going. You constanly cast God in the poorest of light, pointing out the errors of His ways.

Now you're starting to get it. By pointing out the "error of his ways", I show that the premise of a perfect God is difficult to reconcile with a literalist biblical interpretation.

The "poorest light"? What's a "good light" in which to cast a God who orders the death of a woman for failing to scream when raped?

If you have a problem with your God as described in scripture, and can't stand to have those things pointed out, too bad. If the bible is true, your god is guilty of all those things. Now, if the bible is not literally true, or if some parts are false, that's a different story. Do you believe its literally true or that any parts of it are false?


The logical argumentation for the atheist would be to state that "God does not exist, the Bible is false, and I am neither going to Heaven or hell."


Thats not an argument, because by itself its an unsupported statement (one I agree with, but you've presented no supporting information, so its not an argument). You don't really understand what an argument is, do you?


Of course the problem with that argumentation is that you cannot prove any of it.

Argumentation? Oy...

All I'm proving is that if the Bible is true, God did murderous, vile things and the scripture itself supports that. If the scripture is true, the statement is true.

EDIT: CanuckHeaven, I'll again note for you that I don't claim to prove that there is not God, just that the God described in the Bible has essentially the behaviour of a war criminal. The people who believe in a God like that are dangerous.

The storm happened when the 'bet' with Satan was at its close. And even before that, God didn't employ intimidation as a tactic.

Wait, are you saying this just in the context of the Book of Job, or through the Bible before that, including other Books?

Because I feel that a rigorous examination of scripture in that area will yield several statements that are cleary of an intimidating character. Some are outright threats as to what will be done if the people don't obey.

All I'm proving is that if the Bible is true, God did murderous, vile things and the scripture itself supports that. If the scripture is true, the statement is true.
If the Bible is absolutely literally true, then nothing God does can be vile because he is the perfect being. Don't catch yourself in contradictions.

If the Bible is absolutely literally true, then nothing God does can be vile because he is the perfect being. Don't catch yourself in contradictions.

But its the bible caught in a contradiction.

A perfect being doesn't do vile things, but the God in the bible does, while claiming to be perfect. That contradiction predates me substantially.

I'm not asking this to be rude or belittle anyone, but does everybody understand how argument by contradiction works?

You take the opposing position to be true, and extrapolate the resultant things that must therefore also be true, and if they contradict, the original premise can be viewed as flawed.

So, when I make the statement "If the Bible is literally true", and it shows God to be simultaneously vile (imperfect) and perfect, the contradiction is in the premise, not the argument.

Anybody here have a background in any kind of formal logic, discrete mathematics, comparative philosophy, something like that, who can help me explain it better?

EDIT: Okay, I have to get some work done, but I'll try back another time to see responses. Barring another mass forum failure like the one the other night, it shouldn't be more than a few days at the most, so long as the forums are up.

But its the bible caught in a contradiction.

A perfect being doesn't do vile things, but the God in the bible does, while claiming to be perfect. That contradiction predates me substantially.SC, your problem - and the problem of most other non-literalist Christians - is that you haven't the capacity for the amount of cognitive dissonance required to embrace genocide while renouncing murder.

SC, your problem - and the problem of most other non-literalist Christians - is that you haven't the capacity for the amount of cognitive dissonance required to embrace genocide while renouncing murder.

Sim, please help. I get the feeling they won't believe me because its me.
Can you at least describe to them how argument by contradiction works as a tool reveal fallacy?

Okay, now I have to work...

Perfect example of a proof by contradiction.

Let us prove that the square root of 2 is irrational.

We start by "assuming" that it is in fact rational. We then go through a few logical steps, and reach a contradiction. This contradiction shows that the original premise "root 2 is rational' is false, proving that it is irrational.

So:

Assume root 2 is rational.

Root(2) = a / b

a and b can be cancelled down so that they share no common factors.
Hence, a and b are relatively prime.

If Root(2) = a / b
Then 2 = (a / b) ^2
Because we can square both sides of the equation.

If 2 = (a / b)^2
Then 2 = a^2 / b^2
Bwecause of the fraction to a power theorem.

If 2 = a^2 / b^2
Then 2b^2 = a^2
Because we can multiply both sides by b^2.

We have started with the assumption that root 2 is irrational.
We have made several appropriate steps of logic in accordance with the theorems of mathematics.
Here comes the contradiction:

2b^2 = a^2

According to the fundamental theorem of arithmatic, a^2 has a unique factorisation which has an even number of factors. The same applies for b^2.
But b^2 is multiplied by 2, which means that the left side of the equation has an odd number of factors.

Both sides of the equation are supposed to be equal. But the left has an odd number of factors, and the right has an even number of factors. This means that the left cannot possibly equal the right.

This is a contradiction. IF root 2 is rational, the result is that we have a mathematical impossibility. Therefore, root 2 is NOT rational. It is irrational.

This is a proof by contradiction. You assume that what you are trying to disprove is correct, you make steps of logic, reach a contradiction, and this makes the original premise untrue.

Perfect example of a proof by contradiction.

*snip*

This is a proof by contradiction. You assume that what you are trying to disprove is correct, you make steps of logic, reach a contradiction, and this makes the original premise untrue.

That's a great example, although when I studied, we used a recursive process at the end to show that both sides were infinitely divisble by two under the premise, which is obviously problematic for any finite integers "a" and "b".

I worry, though, that this degree of logical rigor might be too esoteric for those not mathematically inclined.

Still, thank you for the example, its a fine demonstration of the process.

That's a great example, although when I studied, we used a recursive process at the end to show that both sides were infinitely divisble by two under the premise, which is obviously problematic for any finite integers "a" and "b".

I worry, though, that this degree of logical rigor might be too esoteric for those not mathematically inclined.

Still, thank you for the example, its a fine demonstration of the process.

:fluffle:

Yes it is perhaps a little esoteric. Which is why I laugh at those who say "what's the point of learning mathematics, I'm never going to use it". Comes back to bight them in the arse if they get into a debate.

:fluffle:

Yes it is perhaps a little esoteric. Which is why I laugh at those who say "what's the point of learning mathematics, I'm never going to use it". Comes back to bight them in the arse if they get into a debate.

Its actually quite interesting how an exploration of mathematics yields great benefits in the level of one's discourse on any subject. Although I certainly wouldn't posture myself as an expert, I try to spend at least some time on a weekly basis exploring at least rudimentary mathematics for that precise reason.

The storm happened when the 'bet' with Satan was at its close. And even before that, God didn't employ intimidation as a tactic.Don't spin it for me, i read it myself, WITHOUT "pastor"'s help. I reread it a few times. I know what it says. You just don't seem to understand what i said.
WHEN GOD APPROACHED JOB, HE ARRIVED AS THE MAELSTROM. It's right there - what is the point of this post?
And so, god employed intimidation as a loving, kind gesture to a loyal pissant. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise.

About my comment on bearing false witness: I'm not trying to say that misleading people or obfuscating is right-- it isn't. I'm just saying that it's not within the scope of the particular Commandment which Saint Curie was referring to.

Bearing false witness against your neighbor does not refer to misleading them, it refers to making untrue statements which hurt other people-- slander and libel, basically. Accusing people of things they didn't do.

I used the italics to emphasize the part of the commandment which you left out.I was speaking in qualification to Saint Curie's issue, not any particular issue of me "leaving out" anything.
It is a stretch, of course, to infer a commandment from "god" as a socially benevolent appreciation, considering the material i posted just earlier, in the same tablet of reference. God was really, really good at pointing out how easy it was to make things suffer and die en masse, so i'll skip on the morality lessons from that particular pathetic infant, thanks (not you, "god")

I'm not asking this to be rude or belittle anyone, but does everybody understand how argument by contradiction works?

You take the opposing position to be true, and extrapolate the resultant things that must therefore also be true, and if they contradict, the original premise can be viewed as flawed.

So, when I make the statement "If the Bible is literally true", and it shows God to be simultaneously vile (imperfect) and perfect, the contradiction is in the premise, not the argument.

Anybody here have a background in any kind of formal logic, discrete mathematics, comparative philosophy, something like that, who can help me explain it better?

EDIT: Okay, I have to get some work done, but I'll try back another time to see responses. Barring another mass forum failure like the one the other night, it shouldn't be more than a few days at the most, so long as the forums are up.

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: CAN be!
Man: No it can't! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't!
Man: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Man: Yes but that's not just saying "no it isn't".
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is!
Mr. Vibrating: Not at all!
Man: Now look...
Mr. Vibrating: (Hits a bell on his desk) [DING] Good morning!
Man: (stunned) What?
Mr. Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.
Man: But I was just getting interested!
Mr. Vibrating: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
--
;)

SC, your problem - and the problem of most other non-literalist Christians - is that you haven't the capacity for the amount of cognitive dissonance required to embrace genocide while renouncing murder.
Siglisted!!! :D

Not yet, perhaps. But historically speaking, science has shown a pattern of eventually being able to explain things which, in times past, were unexplainable. Thunderstorms, seasons, planetary movement... etc.
They used various weather to mark the beginning of seasons. They already knew about planetary movement for it is in other folklore.

That doesn't begin to show that these people were able to explain these things, just that they were able to utilize them. People in the Dark Ages were not aware of the fact that lightning was a result of negatively-charged thunderclouds attaining sufficient electrical voltage to complete a brief circuit with the positively charged ground.

They weren't aware of the fact that seasons are the combined result of an elliptical orbit and a planet on an angular axis, they weren't even aware of the fact that we were the orbiting mass rather than the orbited mass until the Renaissance.

Keeping in mind, these were mere examples. There are a great many other instances throughout history where science eventually explained what had been unexplained for centuries, and even millenia. Science is the neverending quest for knowledge. Knowledge which we have gained is thusly put to use unlocking doors for even more knowledge. These steps have repeated themselves throughout history, they are repeating themselves as we debate, and they shall continue to repeat themselves. That which is unexplained today, shall be explained tomorrow.

If they don't truly, honestly believe, who are you to force your opinion onto them? It's their free will, no?
Your right. It is their free will. I'm just concerned about where they are going to go at the end of their lives.

That's good of you, really, it is. You believe they're going to Hell. Hell is a bad place, and you don't wish that on your fellow human beings. Good one, really, that's quite upstanding of you, and I want you to know I'm really not trying to be smart.

However, that's one of the biggest problems I have with the Judeo-Christian deity. There are a lot of good people out there who don't believe in God, and as a result, they're going to Hell (in your philosophy). They are not merely attending Hell, they are locked there for an eternity. Forever. As in, these folk will never leave. Their "crime?" Having second thoughts about a deity who hasn't shown himself.

Let's examine this.

God gave us our senses (hearing, sight, taste, smell, touch). God also gave us Free Will, logic, reason, and instinct. However, God has not manifested himself in any direct, coherent, manner detectable through either our internal five senses or by external, man-made sensor devices. Logically, God is non-existent. Therefore, some people choose to disbelieve in the existence of a God.

They have utilized tools made available to them by God, and yet they are still obviously capable of disbelieving in him. They aren't disbelieving him out of spite, they simply don't believe in him. Many of them are willing to accept the existence of a God, if he'd just show himself and an ID. In short, it's perfectly reasonable to accept why people disbelieve in a God, yet they're still going to Hell for an eternity, meanwhile the rapist who *truly* believes in God will serve his term in Hell and then get sent off to Heaven.

Clever, if not obvious loophole designed to convert people. And damn if I don't like conversion -- that really pisses me off.

You do realise, however, that there are certain things (e.g. God) that science may never be able to discover, no matter how much it grows in sophistication? Thus, it may forever remain a question of belief.

Belief which I must base on a 2,000 year-old book claiming the Universe was the result of a Cosmic Sky Bully with an overabundance of both time and clay? Forgive me if I'm skeptical. Oh wait, I forgot. I'm going to Hell for being irrationally skeptical, that part with the clay and the Sky Bully makes perfect sense. Just ignore that last part, then.

Seriously -- I just don't believe in a God. I've never seen or heard anything extraordinary enough for me to believe that it had to have been God.

Hell is distance from God. Satan lures others to join him in his misery. One who lives a good life (be they Christian or not) can approach God.
This is indeed correct :)

That isn't at all correct. You just finished telling us that someone who doesn't believe in God, regardless of how good a person they were, gets a one-way ticket to Hell. Faith, and faith alone will get you into Heaven, no?

That isn't at all correct. You just finished telling us that someone who doesn't believe in God, regardless of how good a person they were, gets a one-way ticket to Hell. Faith, and faith alone will get you into Heaven, no?
You're obviously not aware of Jesus' teachings, if you think this. Actions take you to "Heaven", not faith...

"If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you."

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?


well everyone dies thats a fact so when its your time its your time and yes i belivein God and yes i have faith in him

Yes, and the demonstration is that I voted "Yes". God exists.
Bah, you non-catholical can't understand... If you don't go to the church for two or three years it's normal you forget him. Ah, if the world may be all Catholical...

If you think that neighbor in a biblical context means only your "next door--" then you're not familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus makes quite clear that even your most hated enemy is your neighbor.

The morality difference is that one is more likely to harm another person than the other is.

This is indeed correct.

Hey that's up to the people ... a "benevolent dictatorship" you keep denying Bush is making the U.S. into ...

Should i vote for you?
*poll coming*

That's because Bush isn't turning us into a dictatorship :rolleyes:

Your total argumentation is a complete fallacy.

You state that God does not exist. Therefore it would be logical to presume that to you, the Bible is totally ficticious?

Therefore, using the Bible to support your argument that God does not exist is totally illogical.

You complain of Corny's constant Bible offerings, yet you are the biggest Bible thumper going. You constanly cast God in the poorest of light, pointing out the errors of His ways.

The logical argumentation for the atheist would be to state that "God does not exist, the Bible is false, and I am neither going to Heaven or hell."

Of course the problem with that argumentation is that you cannot prove any of it.

WOW!! Nice Post CH. :)

But its the bible caught in a contradiction.

Actually no it isn't if you actually learn to follow the passages as I am learningto do thanks to the Lord.

Don't spin it for me, i read it myself, WITHOUT "pastor"'s help. I reread it a few times. I know what it says. You just don't seem to understand what i said.
WHEN GOD APPROACHED JOB, HE ARRIVED AS THE MAELSTROM. It's right there - what is the point of this post?
And so, god employed intimidation as a loving, kind gesture to a loyal pissant. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise.

Everyone reads the bible and can interpret its words to however they want.

Yes, and the demonstration is that I voted "Yes". God exists.
Bah, you non-catholical can't understand... If you don't go to the church for two or three years it's normal you forget him. Ah, if the world may be all Catholical...

Excuse me what? There was a time where I didn't go to church for quite sometime but yet I never forgot about God.

The poll seems to be closed but for the record no, I don't.

Belief which I must base on a 2,000 year-old book claiming the Universe was the result of a Cosmic Sky Bully with an overabundance of both time and clay? Forgive me if I'm skeptical. Oh wait, I forgot. I'm going to Hell for being irrationally skeptical, that part with the clay and the Sky Bully makes perfect sense. Just ignore that last part, then.
It's not an appeal to you to believe. It is why I believe. You may do as you please. As for going to Hell, you saw what I said on the matter.

Seriously -- I just don't believe in a God. I've never seen or heard anything extraordinary enough for me to believe that it had to have been God.
And that remains your prerogative. I am not your to proselytise. Only to clarify my own position.

For all my life (i'm 17) I have been a Lutheran and I had full faith in God. However, in, ironic as it is, my religion class I lost my faith. We were given an assignment to research atheist vews, and they had some some pretty damn good points. I began to question God and eventually it got so bad I just made an ultimatum: if he loves me infinitley and would do anything to ensure my salvation than he would help me in with my waning belief and do something enough that I might know for absolute sure he was there. Nothing happened, that was when I stopped believing. Even if God does exist, he wouldn't give me any help at all in believing in him then he is mailicious and sadistic and, as someone said earlier, not deserving of our worship.

For all my life (i'm 17) I have been a Lutheran and I had full faith in God. However, in, ironic as it is, my religion class I lost my faith. We were given an assignment to research atheist vews, and they had some some pretty damn good points. I began to question God and eventually it got so bad I just made an ultimatum: if he loves me infinitley and would do anything to ensure my salvation than he would help me in with my waning belief and do something enough that I might know for absolute sure he was there. Nothing happened, that was when I stopped believing. Even if God does exist, he wouldn't give me any help at all in believing in him then he is mailicious and sadistic and, as someone said earlier, not deserving of our worship.

I am sorry Novus Britannea. I am urging you not to lose your faith but to come back to Him for it is through him that we are made strong even though we feel low. Just keep seeking God and you will find your faith again.

For all my life (i'm 17) I have been a Lutheran and I had full faith in God. However, in, ironic as it is, my religion class I lost my faith. We were given an assignment to research atheist vews, and they had some some pretty damn good points. I began to question God and eventually it got so bad I just made an ultimatum: if he loves me infinitley and would do anything to ensure my salvation than he would help me in with my waning belief and do something enough that I might know for absolute sure he was there. Nothing happened, that was when I stopped believing. Even if God does exist, he wouldn't give me any help at all in believing in him then he is mailicious and sadistic and, as someone said earlier, not deserving of our worship.

Just do whatever makes you happy my friend, even if you stay a Christian it's always good to question things and come to your own conclusions.

Purely out of curiosity what are the points that influenced you?

For all my life (i'm 17) I have been a Lutheran and I had full faith in God. However, in, ironic as it is, my religion class I lost my faith. We were given an assignment to research atheist vews, and they had some some pretty damn good points. I began to question God and eventually it got so bad I just made an ultimatum: if he loves me infinitley and would do anything to ensure my salvation than he would help me in with my waning belief and do something enough that I might know for absolute sure he was there. Nothing happened, that was when I stopped believing. Even if God does exist, he wouldn't give me any help at all in believing in him then he is mailicious and sadistic and, as someone said earlier, not deserving of our worship.
I came to that point in life as well, at your age. I remained an atheist for 2 years, then I decided to return to God. My belief never really died. I remain open-minded and question all, but this does not weaken my faith. It merely strengthens it. I hope you do what's best for you.

You were given a religious studies assignment to research atheist views?

Crikey. And nobody complained the school was trying to un-indoctrinate their kids?

I do believe in a God. True, I have been brought up with the belief in God, but I do feel I found him myself. I lost my faith nearly, and questioned everything. Still, I could not believe that all this, earth, the complexity of nature and the abilities of mankind (technical ,creative...unfortunately also harmful) are just the result of plain coïncidence (I aim at the Big bang here). And from that point, the believe in a Something, I went looking. I found God is not some kind of magician or miracle-man. He is in a different level, I believe that he did create everything and he takes care of you, but not in a way we want it. I believe his support and care is more in the inner. He gives strength and courage to go through things, and the peace to cope with it all. I have not answers to questions about life and death and hell. But there is so much we do not know yet. Can I prove God real? No. But can you prove that he is not? Only because there are things we do not know or understand is no reason to say God just does not exist.

My grandpa died a month ago. I saw him die, slowly. He was ill, and it was horrible to see it happen. And though my grandpa died, and we all were sad, I felt God. I felt strength inside me to not cry but keep thinking rational instead of being led by emotion and be there for comfort and do the housekeeping so my mum could keep her mind with other things and could be with my granpa as much as possible. I felt God gave me the strength to stay calm and be as supportive as I could for everybody. And even when I cried I felt he was there with comfort. It is odd and contradictive. I cannot explain it either, but this experience made me believe that here is a God, even though I do not know where, how and what. I do not take the bible literally, I use it as a book with good adivces. Jesus, I do not know whether he is the key to heaven but he was a good man and I follow his example of love and peace.

My faith is basic, and though I go to church I do not feel bound to any dogma. God is beyond dogma, he is so much more complex. I do not try to understand him, I try to meet him and experience him. His reasons and being are too complicated to be understood, I think. I imagine it is like trying to explain the DNA-system with all the chromosomes and such in detail to a 3-year old. The kid won`t understand and/or draw wrong conclusions.

Il, I do wish you strength with the loss and hope you will find answers to your questions.

*snip*
Excellent first post. Glad to see you held on to your faith. I agree with the most of what you said.

I do believe in a God. True, I have been brought up with the belief in God, but I do feel I found him myself. I lost my faith nearly, and questioned everything. Still, I could not believe that all this, earth, the complexity of nature and the abilities of mankind (technical ,creative...unfortunately also harmful) are just the result of plain coïncidence (I aim at the Big bang here). And from that point, the believe in a Something, I went looking. I found God is not some kind of magician or miracle-man. He is in a different level, I believe that he did create everything and he takes care of you, but not in a way we want it. I believe his support and care is more in the inner. He gives strength and courage to go through things, and the peace to cope with it all. I have not answers to questions about life and death and hell. But there is so much we do not know yet. Can I prove God real? No. But can you prove that he is not? Only because there are things we do not know or understand is no reason to say God just does not exist.

My grandpa died a month ago. I saw him die, slowly. He was ill, and it was horrible to see it happen. And though my grandpa died, and we all were sad, I felt God. I felt strength inside me to not cry but keep thinking rational instead of being led by emotion and be there for comfort and do the housekeeping so my mum could keep her mind with other things and could be with my granpa as much as possible. I felt God gave me the strength to stay calm and be as supportive as I could for everybody. And even when I cried I felt he was there with comfort. It is odd and contradictive. I cannot explain it either, but this experience made me believe that here is a God, even though I do not know where, how and what. I do not take the bible literally, I use it as a book with good adivces. Jesus, I do not know whether he is the key to heaven but he was a good man and I follow his example of love and peace.

My faith is basic, and though I go to church I do not feel bound to any dogma. God is beyond dogma, he is so much more complex. I do not try to understand him, I try to meet him and experience him. His reasons and being are too complicated to be understood, I think. I imagine it is like trying to explain the DNA-system with all the chromosomes and such in detail to a 3-year old. The kid won`t understand and/or draw wrong conclusions.

Il, I do wish you strength with the loss and hope you will find answers to your questions.

Welcome to the Boards Mernania. I am glad that you hung on to your faith and that it is strong.

I am sorry Novus Britannea. I am urging you not to lose your faith but to come back to Him for it is through him that we are made strong even though we feel low. Just keep seeking God and you will find your faith again.

While I'm sure that you mean well, in all fairness, if there is a god, I didn't turn my back on him he turned his back on me.


Just do whatever makes you happy my friend, even if you stay a Christian it's always good to question things and come to your own conclusions.

Purely out of curiosity what are the points that influenced you?

How could he allow sin into the world was probably the biggest single argument. Christians always pull out there freewill argument at this point but it just doesn't make any sense. If God is the only beng able to create and he created man perfect man could not have fallen. It would be like making a clock the kept time perfectly and its design had no flaws and then for no apparent reason began to work improperly. There are many arguments out there that is just the big one. Really the overriding factor was god not doing anything to prevent me losing my faith. His lack of action is completely incompatible with the picture that the bible paints. It just can't be right. So either there is a god who doesn't love me enough to atleast do something to prevent me from turing away or there is no god at all. Either way he is not deserving of my worship.

I came to that point in life as well, at your age. I remained an atheist for 2 years, then I decided to return to God. My belief never really died. I remain open-minded and question all, but this does not weaken my faith. It merely strengthens it. I hope you do what's best for you.

I doubt I'll turn back. To be perfectly honest I am suffering withdrawl symptoms (i guess thats what you'd call it). Its really hard to suddenly stop praying when you need something or just realizing all of the sudden that your alone (in a cosmic sort of way). And no, I don't think thats something deep down inside of me telling me to go back to god. Its a perfectly logical response, I just have to get used to the idea that he isn't there.

While I'm sure that you mean well, in all fairness, if there is a god, I didn't turn my back on him he turned his back on me.

God doesn't turn his back on people Britannea. He wants us all to be with him.

I doubt I'll turn back. To be perfectly honest I am suffering withdrawl symptoms (i guess thats what you'd call it). Its really hard to suddenly stop praying when you need something or just realizing all of the sudden that your alone (in a cosmic sort of way). And no, I don't think thats something deep down inside of me telling me to go back to god. Its a perfectly logical response, I just have to get used to the idea that he isn't there.

This is God's way of telling you to come back to him. He is trying to reach out to you so that you do not walk astray. Do not turn your back on this outreach. He loves you Novus Britannea.

I doubt I'll turn back. To be perfectly honest I am suffering withdrawl symptoms (i guess thats what you'd call it). Its really hard to suddenly stop praying when you need something or just realizing all of the sudden that your alone (in a cosmic sort of way). And no, I don't think thats something deep down inside of me telling me to go back to god. Its a perfectly logical response, I just have to get used to the idea that he isn't there.
As you wish.

You were given a religious studies assignment to research atheist views?

Crikey. And nobody complained the school was trying to un-indoctrinate their kids?

On a minor note are religion teacher is an idiot. The kind that just real shouldn't have made it this far with natural selection.

Still, I could not believe that all this, earth, the complexity of nature and the abilities of mankind (technical ,creative...unfortunately also harmful) are just the result of plain coïncidence (I aim at the Big bang here).

I hate to nit-pick but the evolution of complexity in life-forms is not dependant on chance.

How could he allow sin into the world was probably the biggest single argument. Christians always pull out there freewill argument at this point but it just doesn't make any sense. If God is the only beng able to create and he created man perfect man could not have fallen. It would be like making a clock the kept time perfectly and its design had no flaws and then for no apparent reason began to work improperly. There are many arguments out there that is just the big one. Really the overriding factor was god not doing anything to prevent me losing my faith. His lack of action is completely incompatible with the picture that the bible paints. It just can't be right. So either there is a god who doesn't love me enough to atleast do something to prevent me from turing away or there is no god at all. Either way he is not deserving of my worship.

Certainly an interesting idea. If I may interject here I would like to add that the idea of human disobedience bringing sin into the world fell apart rather with the discovery of evolution in my opinion.