NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Oh brother.

Oh brother.

What are you disputing? That evolution casts doubt on original sin or the veracity of evolutionary theory?

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.
Why evolution? The argument Novus Britannea gave seemed pretty self-sufficient --why do you think it took evolution to break the idea of original sin?

Is it possible to believe that there is a god or some power beyond our own, and that there is something after death without being to keen on "religion"?

Because I'm not to fond of religion, I don't care for people telling me what "God" wants us to do.
But believing in certain morals and values is something I do, and I believe that a notion of "God" lives inside of us, and its the deepest and most pure and natural parts of our consciences or souls, and I believe "God" is different for us all, but we all have common perceptives of what is good and right on a very basic level and that if we follow things, and honestly feel them to be good and right, that we will be rewarded in the end, and will reach a level of what you could call heaven. Or at least we need to believe it, or else a lot of people would be depressed all the time.

Religion complicates things and some people use it against one another, unjustly they do, but on a very deep level, people should look inside themselves and I think they will find "God".

Also, growing up in a Christian family and wathcing a lot of the History Channel, religion is something that humans have created, and dont get me wrong, faith is nice, but humans have dirtied it up and added all sorts of crap to "religion" and call it holy.

Personally, and I'm not trying to push this on anyone else, I'm not one to say I'm right and the only one who is. Please dont misread me. But there are one set of religious rules which seem to be largely but not completely good enough to make the world function like it should, and each of these rules can be fine-tuned to fit any good society along with Love and Respect.

These are the 6 of the 10 commandments dealing with people (explanations included):

Don't Lie: If you lie, it could cause harm to others, and people will stop listening.

Don't Steal: This is easy, don't take what is not yours to have, or it could make another angry and they might kill you.

Don't Kill: This is also easy, would you want to be killed?

Don't Commit Adultery: This would make a man or woman crazy, and could lead to you being killed.

Don't Covet: This could lead to adultery or stealing and then in turn get you killed.

Honor Your Mother and Father: It's always nice to be good to the people who feed you and cloth you.

Every good thing about religion could come from these rules in some form or another, and with a little love, hope, and some love of peace, everything else in religion can be thrown out. It complicates life.

Oh and I almost forgot: If you preached and taught these rules, and promised Jail and, for the biggies like Murder, Hell to those who went against it, It could do no worse of a job in guiding people than religion today.

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 Jews rejected Jesus as the 'son of god', because it is blasphemy.

The Old Testament texts clearly preclude any other possible 'aspects' of God.

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

And they chose to believe it, rather than the random protestations of yet another messiah cult...

The Jews rejected Jesus as the 'son of god', because it is blasphemy.

The Old Testament texts clearly preclude any other possible 'aspects' of God.

Which is ironic considering all the prophacies about the Messiah and when they are fullfilled, they don't accept it. Just like they did not accept the prophets.

Which is ironic considering all the prophacies about the Messiah and when they are fullfilled, they don't accept it. Just like they did not accept the prophets.

I hate to jump in, and I'm not knocking Jews, but that is very good point. The Jews prophecize about a messiah yet when someone comes up and claims they are, they deny it.

Directed at someone who is Jewish and practices Judaism:

What do you believe about the Messiah, what do you think will happen, when the "real" one comes along and how do you expect that will know?

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.

Then you were never an atheist...

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


Of course YOU believe that... it doesn't make it TRUE, though...

Then you were never an atheist...
I've never really understood why there are so many believers who like to claim they used to be atheists, when they themselves will admit that they never actually let go of their superstitious beliefs. Hell, some of them say they were "atheists" just because they skipped church for a couple of years.

Of course YOU believe that... it doesn't make it TRUE, though...
Reality has a well-known bias against Christians.

Which is ironic considering all the prophacies about the Messiah and when they are fullfilled, they don't accept it. Just like they did not accept the prophets.

Most of the things you might call 'prophecies of messiah'... just aren't.

It is revisionist history to rpetend they are.

And, with regard to things that ARE prophetic, Jesus is remarkably unsuccessful at fulfilling them... Like his connection to David, or the Curse on Jeconiah.

I've never really understood why there are so many believers who like to claim they used to be atheists, when they themselves will admit that they never actually let go of their superstitious beliefs. Hell, some of them say they were "atheists" just because they skipped church for a couple of years.

I suspect it is an attempt to rebuff people like me... raised as Christian, but 'saw through it', and are now living happily satisfied Atheistic lives.

So - some Christians 'claim' to have been Atheists, so that they can claim to have lived both sides of the track, but 'seen the light, again'.

Reality has a well-known bias against Christians.

:)

I hate to jump in, and I'm not knocking Jews, but that is very good point. The Jews prophecize about a messiah yet when someone comes up and claims they are, they deny it.

Directed at someone who is Jewish and practices Judaism:

What do you believe about the Messiah, what do you think will happen, when the "real" one comes along and how do you expect that will know?
Anyone claiming to be a Messiah will always be a threat to the current religious "authority". Accepting a prophet requires handing over the authority and power to him. This is why Jesus says that no prophet will be welcomed in his home town. Jesus posed a threat to organised religion, because he believed that faith should not be imposed. He wanted people to follow God for love, not be slaves of fear in the mouths of corrupted priests. The Messiah is a threat to religious power, mainly because the Messiah is against religious power.

If Jesus returned today, would he join the pope in the Vatican or would he say to him "Shame on you for living in such luxury, while children die of hunger"...

I go for the second option.

Anyone claiming to be a Messiah will always be a threat to the current religious "authority". Accepting a prophet requires handing over the authority and power to him. This is why Jesus says that no prophet will be welcomed in his home town. Jesus posed a threat to organised religion, because he believed that faith should not be imposed. He wanted people to follow God for love, not be slaves of fear in the mouths of corrupted priests. The Messiah is a threat to religious power, mainly because the Messiah is against religious power.

If Jesus returned today, would he join the pope in the Vatican or would he say to him "Shame on you for living in such luxury, while children die of hunger"...

I go for the second option.

Also worth mentioning that Messiahs were dime a dozen, at that point... and yet, all of them (except, apparently... one) turned out to be false messiahs.

Even if Jesus truly WAS Messiah (despite the unlikeliness), he had pretty much bugger-all chance of being believed by the Jews, at that point.

Anyone claiming to be a Messiah will always be a threat to the current religious "authority". Accepting a prophet requires handing over the authority and power to him. This is why Jesus says that no prophet will be welcomed in his home town. Jesus posed a threat to organised religion, because he believed that faith should not be imposed. He wanted people to follow God for love, not be slaves of fear in the mouths of corrupted priests. The Messiah is a threat to religious power, mainly because the Messiah is against religious power.

If Jesus returned today, would he join the pope in the Vatican or would he say to him "Shame on you for living in such luxury, while children die of hunger"...

I go for the second option.

Thank You, I accept this as very logical and a reasonable assumption. I just thought I'd pose a question. I'm not out to prove anything to anyone, though it is quite amusing to see people who try to on these forums. FAT CHANCE

If Jesus returned today, would he join the pope in the Vatican or would he say to him "Shame on you for living in such luxury, while children die of hunger"...

If Jesus returned today, I think we all should line up to say "Shame on you, you pathetic excuse for a Son of God. That bullshit stunt you pulled back in the day has lead to the violent deaths of more humans than the bubonic plague (which, incidently, you could have fucking gotten off your ass to fix, thank you very much), and you haven't lifted a bloody finger to do anything about it. I hope you enjoyed your grandstanding, you little punk, because it's been giving little kids nightmares for two millenia. With the connections you've got, you might actually have been able to do some good around here, but instead you decided to go sloth around in Heaven instead of getting your hands a bit dirty. Sod off."

I've never really understood why there are so many believers who like to claim they used to be atheists, when they themselves will admit that they never actually let go of their superstitious beliefs. Hell, some of them say they were "atheists" just because they skipped church for a couple of years.
Well... I was a "devout" atheist until I reached 31 and became an Agnostic...

Well... I was a "devout" atheist until I reached 31 and became an Agnostic...
Oh, I'm certainly not saying that people who are atheist must remain atheist for life. I, myself, identified as atheist for a good number of years, and now I identify as agnostic.

My point was that a lot of believers decide to claim they were "atheist" even though they simply were not atheist. Maybe this is just a matter of them not understanding what "atheist" means. I dunno.

Maybe this is just a matter of them not understanding what "atheist" means. I dunno.

And as a preemptive strike, it means not theist. Y'all continue your discussion now.

If Jesus returned today, I think we all should line up to say "Shame on you, you pathetic excuse for a Son of God. That bullshit stunt you pulled back in the day has lead to the violent deaths of more humans than the bubonic plague (which, incidently, you could have fucking gotten off your ass to fix, thank you very much), and you haven't lifted a bloody finger to do anything about it. I hope you enjoyed your grandstanding, you little punk, because it's been giving little kids nightmares for two millenia. With the connections you've got, you might actually have been able to do some good around here, but instead you decided to go sloth around in Heaven instead of getting your hands a bit dirty. Sod off."
Don't be so naive... Mankind never needed any deities to provoke violent deaths. If those deaths had not happened through an organised religion, they would have happened through some other source of power.

Or are you going to blame Jesus for Stalin and Hitler now?...

If Jesus returned today, I think we all should line up to say "Shame on you, you pathetic excuse for a Son of God. That bullshit stunt you pulled back in the day has lead to the violent deaths of more humans than the bubonic plague (which, incidently, you could have fucking gotten off your ass to fix, thank you very much), and you haven't lifted a bloody finger to do anything about it. I hope you enjoyed your grandstanding, you little punk, because it's been giving little kids nightmares for two millenia. With the connections you've got, you might actually have been able to do some good around here, but instead you decided to go sloth around in Heaven instead of getting your hands a bit dirty. Sod off."

LOL.. I must say that if there is a God and Christians are correct, you'd go straight to Hell for that one.

I can understand how one might feel that way about life. But someone said earlier, that really life is soo many things. Life has been great, and life has been hard at times. You take the good with the bad I suppose, and just do the best you can. Don't be angry with Jesus, cause its not like you can kick his ass.

Most of the things you might call 'prophecies of messiah'... just aren't.

It is revisionist history to rpetend they are.

And, with regard to things that ARE prophetic, Jesus is remarkably unsuccessful at fulfilling them... Like his connection to David, or the Curse on Jeconiah.

Well someone asked you what hasn't been fulfilled and you did not answer it. Also, it is not revisionist history for the prophecies are true and that those that deal with Jesus coming to earth and dying on the cross have been fullfilled. Those dealing with the end of this world have yet to occur and they are fastly approaching.

Oh, I'm certainly not saying that people who are atheist must remain atheist for life. I, myself, identified as atheist for a good number of years, and now I identify as agnostic.

My point was that a lot of believers decide to claim they were "atheist" even though they simply were not atheist. Maybe this is just a matter of them not understanding what "atheist" means. I dunno.
Generalisations are never completely true, because there is always the exception to the rule. I would argue that mankind doesn't even know the true significance of being an atheist or a theist...

After all, we can even agree on what God is like, never mind if God exists...

Don't be so naive... Mankind never needed any deities to provoke violent deaths.

No, but belief in dieties sure helps. God-belief is a very useful tool for those with enough stomach to abuse it.


If those deaths had not happened through an organised religion, they would have happened through some other source of power.

That's debatable. If you want to take the long view, none of us gets out alive, so exactly the same number of humans will die no matter what we do. Does that mean that we should make no effort to discourage racism, or treat illnesses, or improve quality of life?


Or are you going to blame Jesus for Stalin and Hitler now?...
Nah, why should I bother? You're building more than enough straw men to go around. :)

Anyone claiming to be a Messiah will always be a threat to the current religious "authority". Accepting a prophet requires handing over the authority and power to him. This is why Jesus says that no prophet will be welcomed in his home town. Jesus posed a threat to organised religion, because he believed that faith should not be imposed. He wanted people to follow God for love, not be slaves of fear in the mouths of corrupted priests. The Messiah is a threat to religious power, mainly because the Messiah is against religious power.

If Jesus returned today, would he join the pope in the Vatican or would he say to him "Shame on you for living in such luxury, while children die of hunger"...

I go for the second option.

I go with neither for their will only be one religion that is against God when Jesus returns to earth in full glory.

Generalisations are never completely true, because there is always the exception to the rule. I would argue that mankind doesn't even know the true significance of being an atheist or a theist...

"True significance"? Who cares? I'm talking about the definition of the term, not the philosophical implications. A person who believes in the existence of God is not an atheist, because of the definition of the word.

Also, just as a pet-peeve aside: It's the 21st century, so can we please quit using this "mankind" wording? Typing out "humans" will actually require fewer key strokes, and it has the added benefit of including the 51% of the human species who--just by coincidence--happen to be most frequently marginalized by the major religions.

Well someone asked you what hasn't been fulfilled and you did not answer it. Also, it is not revisionist history for the prophecies are true and that those that deal with Jesus coming to earth and dying on the cross have been fullfilled. Those dealing with the end of this world have yet to occur and they are fastly approaching.

I don't recall anyone asking me... are you sure it was me that was asked? I don't necessarily read all the posts very thoroughly, especially in 100 page threads...

Once again - you fail to understand my wording, though.

I'm not saying prophecies are not true... I'm saying HALF of what Christians CLAIM are 'prophecies fulfilled' were NEVER prophecies (like the born of a virgin bullshit - based on a Greek mistranslation of a passage that was NEVER prophetic to begin with)... and Jesus failed to fulfill the things that WERE prophecies of Messiah - like being a son of David.

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?

That my friend, was the work of Satan, people not believing in God and disobeying Him only empowers Satan, for example on a bigger scale, 9/11.

If Jesus returned today, I think we all should line up to say "Shame on you, you pathetic excuse for a Son of God. That bullshit stunt you pulled back in the day has lead to the violent deaths of more humans than the bubonic plague (which, incidently, you could have fucking gotten off your ass to fix, thank you very much), and you haven't lifted a bloody finger to do anything about it. I hope you enjoyed your grandstanding, you little punk, because it's been giving little kids nightmares for two millenia. With the connections you've got, you might actually have been able to do some good around here, but instead you decided to go sloth around in Heaven instead of getting your hands a bit dirty. Sod off."

You would say that to the Son of God, despite the fact that if you did you would instantly be banished to eternal Hell forever?

All wars are the work of SATAN, especially religious wars, unfortunately we must fight in the name of the Holy Trinity to avoid the world being over run by the opposing Satanists.

You would say that to the Son of God, despite the fact that if you did you would instantly be banished to eternal Hell forever?

All wars are the work of SATAN, especially religious wars, unfortunately we must fight in the name of the Holy Trinity to avoid the world being over run by the opposing Satanists.

Well, he could at least keep Mr. Devil on a bit of a leash, eh? And you're thinking of Devil-worshipers, not Satanists.

You would say that to the Son of God, despite the fact that if you did you would instantly be banished to eternal Hell forever?

All wars are the work of SATAN, especially religious wars, unfortunately we must fight in the name of the Holy Trinity to avoid the world being over run by the opposing Satanists.


Do you realize what you have just said.

ALL WARS ARE THE WORK OF SATAN..... WE MUST FIGHT IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

That's the same kind of contradictions you find all through out the Bible, and there would be no wars if people stopped trying to control the lives of everyone else. EDIT:I dont think there is anything wrong with Diplomacy and suggesting certain behavior and not dealing with certain people who disagree with you, but don't force your will

You have your beliefs and you have your right to have them, but you are posting what you believe as if it the "God's" honest truth and it sends a message that anything that is against what you believe is going to send us all to hell.

Well that road goes both ways, and just like that, I can come up with some off the wall bullshit, get enough people who believe me, and send your ass straight to Hell if you dare disagree, or claim that my God will send you straigh to hell.

Please...Please don't attack people with your beliefs

and yes I know I'm sort of attacking you, but its only to correct an error and you all know what I mean.

No, but belief in dieties sure helps. God-belief is a very useful tool for those with enough stomach to abuse it.
So was Nationalism, Nazism, Communism, Socialism and even now Capitalism. Maybe we should ban any word ending with "ism". Wouldn't that solve many of our problems? But then, wealth is a much more efficient tool than God to subvert people and provoke murder, unless you're planning a holy war with little more than bare fists and wooden sticks. :D Do you think that Bush is in Iraq for religious reasons? Of course you don't... Do you really believe that Osama Bin Laden's war against the US is religious? If that was true, he would be more likely to start picking on other Christian countries a bit closer to where he is, like the Vatican for a start...

That's debatable. If you want to take the long view, none of us gets out alive, so exactly the same number of humans will die no matter what we do. Does that mean that we should make no effort to discourage racism, or treat illnesses, or improve quality of life?
You know it's not debatable... Remember Stalin? Remember Hitler? This is what I meant with my "straw-men" My point is that it's not against the tool of power that you must act but against the men abusing the tool. Men will always invent new tools of power to replace the old ones. Corporations are tools of power and some, like Enron, are "evil". Should we ban corporations, because some are used for "evil" purposes? When you take down the tool, a new tool appears. If you are going to attack the tools, you need to attack them all because, ultimately, all tools of power are dangerous in the wrong hands, however peaceful they were supposed to be in the first place.

Nah, why should I bother? You're building more than enough straw men to go around. :)
I'm just saying that mankind's nature is such that it will always find a tool to subvert the masses and, if necessary, oppress them for whatever purposes their leader thinks to be valid.

That my friend, was the work of Satan, people not believing in God and disobeying Him only empowers Satan, for example on a bigger scale, 9/11.

Non-scriptural.

Nice hypothesis, but I'm not convinced you can justify an idea of battery-powered-Satan...

You would say that to the Son of God, despite the fact that if you did you would instantly be banished to eternal Hell forever?


Amazing how few non-believers that argument impresses...


All wars are the work of SATAN, especially religious wars, unfortunately we must fight in the name of the Holy Trinity to avoid the world being over run by the opposing Satanists.

So - when God allegedly told Joshue to carry out HIS holy wars, that was actually Satan?

Do you realize what you have just said.

ALL WARS ARE THE WORK OF SATAN..... WE MUST FIGHT IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

That's the same kind of contradictions you find all through out the Bible, and there would be no wars if people stopped trying to control the lives of everyone else. EDIT:I dont think there is anything wrong with Diplomacy and suggesting certain behavior and not dealing with certain people who disagree with you, but don't force your will

You have your beliefs and you have your right to have them, but you are posting what you believe as if it the "God's" honest truth and it sends a message that anything that is against what you believe is going to send us all to hell.

Well that road goes both ways, and just like that, I can come up with some off the wall bullshit, get enough people who believe me, and send your ass straight to Hell if you dare disagree, or claim that my God will send you straigh to hell.

Please...Please don't attack people with your beliefs

and yes I know I'm sort of attacking you, but its only to correct an error and you all know what I mean.

If everybody worshipped in the true God of Christianity and followed the Bible word for word as was meant, there would be no war. This is currently not the case so we must for wars for God against Satan's forces so that we ourselves are not ruled by Satan.

Well, he could at least keep Mr. Devil on a bit of a leash, eh? And you're thinking of Devil-worshipers, not Satanists.

Literal devil-worshipers are still Satanists, they're just not atheistic Satanists (and that includes LaVeyan Satanists.) Despite what the LaVeyans would seemingly like everyone to think, they don't have a monopoly on the title "Satanist"

ALL WARS ARE THE WORK OF SATAN..... WE MUST FIGHT IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

If everybody worshipped in the true God of Christianity and followed the Bible word for word as was meant, there would be no war. This is currently not the case so we must for wars for God against Satan's forces so that we ourselves are not ruled by Satan.

You have your beliefs and you have your right to have them, but you are posting what you believe as if it the "God's" honest truth and it sends a message that anything that is against what you believe is going to send us all to hell.

What I believe is God's honest truth, buy a Bible and you can read it too.

What I believe is God's honest truth, buy a Bible and you can read it too.

Been there, read it. Not convinced.

Too many contradictions, inconsistencies and stupidity... I mean, COME ON... bats are birds? Snails leave a trail because they melt?

Been there, read it. Not convinced.

Too many contradictions, inconsistencies and stupidity... I mean, COME ON... bats are birds? Snails leave a trail because they melt?

They eat dust too. Don't they?

EDIT: My mistake. Getting my snakes and snails mixed up again! Pretty soon I'll be getting my mammals and avians mixed up too.

Been there, read it. Not convinced.

Too many contradictions, inconsistencies and stupidity... I mean, COME ON... bats are birds? Snails leave a trail because they melt?

You've got to have faith.

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

Well, you're definitely proof of that.

If everybody worshipped in the true God of Christianity and followed the Bible word for word as was meant, there would be no war. This is currently not the case so we must for wars for God against Satan's forces so that we ourselves are not ruled by Satan.


Ok.....let me try again..and I'm so sorry if I offend you, but come off of it.

Really, I'm not being a jackass, really, I mean it. Do you honestly think that if we followed the Bible Verbatim (Word for Word) that there would be no war.

I'm not really out to change your faith. I'm happy that you are Christian, and more power to you. But your interpretation will obviously cause problems.

Maybe I'v read something in the Bible wrong:

"He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:17

Should we round up all the people who have disrespected their parents at one point of another and start stoning them.

and next your going to tell me, not if they ask God for Forgiveness. And then I will say and if they don't.

AND IF THEY DON'T: Will We Stone Them.

I don't know about you, but if someone tried to stone me and a lot of other people in the world, their might be war, and its called fighting for my life.

and to bring up another contradiction.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

"True significance"? Who cares? I'm talking about the definition of the term, not the philosophical implications. A person who believes in the existence of God is not an atheist, because of the definition of the word.
So am I. :D What I mean is that if mankind cannot agree on what God means, how can we define so certainly what is an "atheist" or a "theist"? You see, most of us will consider Buddhists theists but, in practice, they are really atheists, since their interpretation of "God" is like an atheist's view of the world. For Buddhists, "God" is the universe and the base matter from which we originate. In their eyes, every human, animal, plant and rock is a transient part of God. There is a very good chance you might be surprised with what Jesus thought of this possibility...

Also, just as a pet-peeve aside: It's the 21st century, so can we please quit using this "mankind" wording? Typing out "humans" will actually require fewer key strokes, and it has the added benefit of including the 51% of the human species who--just by coincidence--happen to be most frequently marginalized by the major religions.
I like the word "mankind"... I find it a beautiful word which should not be forgotten. It's only one letter longer... Since when the word "mankind" does not include all humans?!

Okay,

If everybody followed the Bible completely and totally all the time, no one will have disrespected their parents.

Yes, disrespectful offspring who do not repent should be put to death.

The bible was originally written in (ancient) Greek and in this language there are different words for murder and execute (as there are in English); so blame the translator, not the inspiration of God for any 'anomalies' that you may come across.

Try reading the Bible; not nit-picking its translation.

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

Corneliu, how was that a nice post?

First off, I never argued that a some God or other necesarrily doesn't exist (although I don't believe in any particular God), I argued that if the God of the Bible exists, he would be a murderous entity that does vile things. I then used scripture to support that.

As to it being unprovable that there is no God, its unprovable that there is, so that objection disputes your own position as much as the athiest one.

How is it illogical to use the opposing side's evidence to demonstrate flaws in their position?

Okay,

If everybody followed the Bible completely and totally all the time, no one will have disrespected their parents.

Yes, disrespectful offspring who do not repent should be put to death.
The bible was originally written in (ancient) Greek and in this language there are different words for murder and execute (as there are in English); so blame the translator, not the inspiration of God for any 'anomalies' that you may come across.

Try reading the Bible; not nit-picking its translation.

Its this mentality of some Christians that people need to be aware of.

You would say that to the Son of God, despite the fact that if you did you would instantly be banished to eternal Hell forever?
Amazing how few non-believers that argument impresses...
How about saying all that rubbish to Jesus, without even listening to what he had to say first? Because my guess is that most atheists would identify themselves much more with Jesus than they can ever imagine, if only they had the chance...

Blaming Jesus for the crimes of the Church is the same as blaming Karl Marx for the crimes of Nazism.

Its this mentality of some Christians that people need to be aware of.

Indeed. It's basically condemning nearly every teenager on the planet to execution.

Okay,

If everybody followed the Bible completely and totally all the time, no one will have disrespected their parents.

Yes, disrespectful offspring who do not repent should be put to death.

The bible was originally written in (ancient) Greek and in this language there are different words for murder and execute (as there are in English); so blame the translator, not the inspiration of God for any 'anomalies' that you may come across.

Try reading the Bible; not nit-picking its translation.

Okay, you obviously don't have children we know that......

IF everyone read the Bible word for Word all the time, then you are right there would be no wars, and we never have to implement the penalties that the Bible sets for those who transgress.

BUT, this is not heaven and we ain't perfect, and I'm sure that you aren't yourself, and in a world of this Kind, it is impossible to keep the Bible exactly as you read it, or you'd be a terribly confused person who would run themselves ragged. The Bible does contradict itself, and if it doesn't, someone a bit more intelligent needs to come up with a new version.

Its people like you that keep others from going to church, or having faith in religion. I don't go to church often and my own is not that bad I see. I want to know what Church you go to that brainwashes people into the kind of interpretation you have.

As I said a while back, I will look for God inside myself, because I know from first hand experience...I'm a person, that people can get things wrong, and NEWSFLASH

PEOPLE WROTE THE BIBLE, and obviously A MAN WHO KNEW GREEK WROTE THE FIRST ONE, AND IF NUTS LIKE YOU GO WRITING BIBLES THAN OH GOD PLEASE SAVE ME, SAVE US ALL.

I don't recall anyone asking me... are you sure it was me that was asked? I don't necessarily read all the posts very thoroughly, especially in 100 page threads...

Once again - you fail to understand my wording, though.

I'm not saying prophecies are not true... I'm saying HALF of what Christians CLAIM are 'prophecies fulfilled' were NEVER prophecies (like the born of a virgin bullshit - based on a Greek mistranslation of a passage that was NEVER prophetic to begin with)... and Jesus failed to fulfill the things that WERE prophecies of Messiah - like being a son of David.

So says you but those of us who are Christians, know differently. Jesus was of the House of David and he was born of a virgin. He fullfilled the prophacy of the Messiah.

Do you realize what you have just said.

ALL WARS ARE THE WORK OF SATAN..... WE MUST FIGHT IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

That's the same kind of contradictions you find all through out the Bible, and there would be no wars if people stopped trying to control the lives of everyone else.

And yet, I have already shown that the Bible isn't full of contradiction. I really wish people stop saying that for it isn't true in the least.

How about saying all that rubbish to Jesus, without even listening to what he had to say first? Because my guess is that most atheists would identify themselves much more with Jesus than they can ever imagine, if only they had the chance...

Blaming Jesus for the crimes of the Church is the same as blaming Karl Marx for the crimes of Nazism.

Um, can we say "blame Karl Marx for the crimes of the Stalinest Regime", instead?

When supporters of Jesus use the Old Testament, whether as the basis of doctrine or as support to establish Jesus as a prophesied messiah, the described events and assertions of the Old Testament become fair game for critique.

Now, if someone were to say, "I don't take the bible to be literally true, but I find much of what is attributed to Jesus to be worth living by", I have no problem with that.

Been there, read it. Not convinced.

Too many contradictions, inconsistencies and stupidity... I mean, COME ON... bats are birds? Snails leave a trail because they melt?

There are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible. There are no inconsistencies either and it is most assuredly is not stupid.

And yet, I have already shown that the Bible isn't full of contradiction. I really wish people stop saying that for it isn't true in the least.

Well, lets discuss it.

In the Bible, God orders the death of the firstborn children of Egypt to get at the pharoah, is that true?

Well, you're definitely proof of that.

Despite the fact that the words I type is straight out of the Bible. There is no interpretation needed.

There are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible. There are no inconsistencies either and it is most assuredly is not stupid.

So, you feel its not stupid to punish children for the crimes of their fathers?

If my father were a bankrobber, should I be punished?

And yet, I have already shown that the Bible isn't full of contradiction. I really wish people stop saying that for it isn't true in the least.

OK EVERYTHING in the Bible is not contradicted...but are you saying to me that the Bible doesn't have some major contradictions. I really want to hear an explanation for this.

That is disturbing to me..it really is, I'm not kidding, my heart just skipped a few beats.

I just read something in the Bible and it contradicts with THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

The "State of Georgia" at least acknowledged that it was a translation gap and not a contradiction..but you can't tell me that as the King James Version of the Bible is right now, there is no contradiction.

*snip*

I already had this arguement with Europa and showed him the difference between killing someone and punishment. Do not misinterpret what was written for it is a fallacy that corpral punishment is wrong because it is in fact, not.

Despite the fact that the words I type is straight out of the Bible. There is no interpretation needed.

How is your Hebrew and Greek?

Do you at least recognize that any observation you make about the Bible (and you've made several that aren't verbatim) is interpretation, same as any of us?

Some of us are just less euphemistic and accomodating of murder in our interpretation.

Okay,

If everybody followed the Bible completely and totally all the time, no one will have disrespected their parents.

Yes, disrespectful offspring who do not repent should be put to death.

The bible was originally written in (ancient) Greek and in this language there are different words for murder and execute (as there are in English); so blame the translator, not the inspiration of God for any 'anomalies' that you may come across.

Try reading the Bible; not nit-picking its translation.

The Old Testiment was written in Ancient Hebrew and the New Testiment was Written in Ancient Greek.

I already had this arguement with Europa and showed him the difference between killing someone and punishment. Do not misinterpret what was written for it is a fallacy that corpral punishment is wrong because it is in fact, not.

Killing is capital punishment.

So, the children that were bashed against a rock and killed at God's command, what were they being punished for?

Well, lets discuss it.

In the Bible, God orders the death of the firstborn children of Egypt to get at the pharoah, is that true?

The Israelites did not kill the first born children of Egypt. The Angel of Death, sent by God did that.

Also, that was before the 10 Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Okay,

If everybody followed the Bible completely and totally all the time, no one will have disrespected their parents.

Yes, disrespectful offspring who do not repent should be put to death.

The bible was originally written in (ancient) Greek and in this language there are different words for murder and execute (as there are in English); so blame the translator, not the inspiration of God for any 'anomalies' that you may come across.

Try reading the Bible; not nit-picking its translation.
Also, Jesus didn't write the Bible, men did. Jesus would NEVER accept anyone being put to death for whatever reason, so being a true Christian is not compatible with executions. Did he not save the adulterous woman from certain death at the hand of a bunch of hypocrites, who acted as if they were morally superior to her? Jesus was against false moralities, whatever they were... If an offspring is disrespectful to his parents, might the parents have been disrespectful to the offspring before (or even to strangers)? How do we know? Who are we to judge and punish so harshly, when the accusers are likely to have committed exactly the same sin before?

OK EVERYTHING in the Bible is not contradicted...but are you saying to me that the Bible doesn't have some major contradictions. I really want to hear an explanation for this.

There are no contradictions for everything is spelled out for those who want to hear it. He who has ears to hear, let them hear.

[uote]That is disturbing to me..it really is, I'm not kidding, my heart just skipped a few beats.[/quote]

Drink somewater, take a walk and you'll be fine :)

I just read something in the Bible and it contradicts with THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

And everyone knows that means killing someone aka murder. It is not against the Law to put someone to death if that is the sentence of the crime that was committed.

The "State of Georgia" at least acknowledged that it was a translation gap and not a contradiction..but you can't tell me that as the King James Version of the Bible is right now, there is no contradiction.

I can honestly say that the Bible is not full of contradictions for there are no contradictions in it.

The Israelites did not kill the first born children of Egypt. The Angel of Death, sent by God did that.

Also, that was before the 10 Commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

I didn't say the Israelites did it, I said God ordered it.

Or do the angels take the orders from somewhere else?

Oh, so killing was wrong after it was written on stone, but before that it was okay?

Keep demonstrating how you think, Corneliu, I want people to see it.

So, again, The Angel of Death, at God's command killed the firstborn to get at a political leader. He then later says killing is wrong.

If I do something wrong, and then tomorrow tell other people not to do it because its wrong, you don't see the contradiction?

And everyone knows that means killing someone aka murder. It is not against the Law to put someone to death if that is the sentence of the crime that was committed.

And why is it a just sentence to kill a child for disrespect? Is there any part of you that recognizes the monstrosity of that?


I can honestly say that the Bible is not full of contradictions for there are no contradictions in it.

Do you see where that might be seen as circular?

Also, Jesus didn't write the Bible, men did. Jesus would NEVER accept anyone being put to death for whatever reason, so being a true Christian is not compatible with executions.

Actually..that's not entirely accurate for we are supposed to accept the consequences of our actions even if the consequence is Death.

Did he not save the adulterous woman from certain death at the hand of a bunch of hypocrites, who acted as if they were morally superior to her?

that is indeed correct.

Jesus was against false moralities, whatever they were... If an offspring is disrespectful to his parents, might the parents have been disrespectful to the offspring before (or even to strangers)? How do we know? Who are we to judge and punish so harshly, when the accusers are likely to have committed exactly the same sin before?

Only Jesus has the authority to judge and He will Judge all of us.

Also, Jesus didn't write the Bible, men did. Jesus would NEVER accept anyone being put to death for whatever reason, so being a true Christian is not compatible with executions. Did he not save the adulterous woman from certain death at the hand of a bunch of hypocrites, who acted as if they were morally superior to her? Jesus was against false moralities, whatever they were... If an offspring is disrespectful to his parents, might the parents have been disrespectful to the offspring before (or even to strangers)? How do we know? Who are we to judge and punish so harshly, when the accusers are likely to have committed exactly the same sin before?

Assis, your mentality here is a lot more Christ-like than just about anything I've seen on this forum.

I'm sure we disagree on a lot, but what you've said in this quote gladdens me that there are religious peole who take this view.

I didn't say the Israelites did it, I said God ordered it.

Or do the angels take the orders from somewhere else?

Nope. They take their orders from God.

Oh, so killing was wrong after it was written on stone, but before that it was okay?

Nope but when God issues His orders, they are to be followed.

Keep demonstrating how you think, Corneliu, I want people to see it.

For the word was God.

So, again, The Angel of Death, at God's command killed the firstborn to get at a political leader. He then later says killing is wrong.

You are still trying to use a fallacy here and it isn't working.

If I do something wrong, and then tomorrow tell other people not to do it because its wrong, you don't see the contradiction?

You are to be punished for you are only human but the God is divine.

And why is it a just sentence to kill a child for disrespect? Is there any part of you that recognizes the monstrosity of that?

Who am I to question the Law of Moses. I am only a human, created in the image of the Lord?

Actually..that's not entirely accurate for we are supposed to accept the consequences of our actions even if the consequence is Death.


Oh, really? Then why are you willing to let somebody else take the wages of your sin?

I guess only Christians don't have to take the consequences of their actions (even while preaching that they do).

That's hilarious coming from you.

In your religion, the punishment for all sin is death. Will you take the consequences, or let somebody else take the punishment?

Begin rationalizing now, please.

Nope. They take their orders from God.

Nope but when God issues His orders, they are to be followed.

For the word was God.


Then why doesn't God have to take responsibility for what he orders? And you as his follower for going along with it?


You are still trying to use a fallacy here and it isn't working.


Explain what kind of fallacy and how I'm using it, and we'll discuss it.


You are to be punished for you are only human but the God is divine.

Ah, so being divine means "takes no responsibility". By that definition, your God is truly divine.

Should perfect beings be held to a lesser standard in that way?

I would think a perfect being who wants their orders followed without question would be held to a higher standard...

Who am I to question the Law of Moses. I am only a human, created in the image of the Lord?

Simple. You are somebody who wants us to believe the Bible is true and without contradiction, so when these contradictions (such as God claiming to be perfect and then ordering his Angel to kill children to get at a political figure) are demonstrated you need to respond to them.

You're someone in a discussion, that's who you are. So please address the point at hand.

So says you but those of us who are Christians, know differently. Jesus was of the House of David and he was born of a virgin. He fullfilled the prophacy of the Messiah.

So says you but the Bible says differently.

PEOPLE WROTE THE BIBLE, and obviously A MAN WHO KNEW GREEK WROTE THE FIRST ONE, AND IF NUTS LIKE YOU GO WRITING BIBLES THAN OH GOD PLEASE SAVE ME, SAVE US ALL.

Please do not degrade yourself to slander.

Oh, really? Then why are you willing to let somebody else take the wages of your sin?

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.

I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions here on earth but my sins are forgiven thanks to the Blood of the Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

I guess only Christians don't have to take the consequences of their actions (even while preaching that they do).

I accept the consequences of my action. I should have had a B in a class but because I did not do the work, I got a C+. that was the consequence of not doing the work I was supposed to do. I have accepted the grade.

In your religion, the punishment for all sin is death. Will you take the consequences, or let somebody else take the punishment?

Begin rationalizing now, please.

My sins have been forgiven.

Then why doesn't God have to take responsibility for what he orders? And you as his follower for going along with it?

The Lord is Divine. It is not my place to question the orders of God.

Explain what kind of fallacy and how I'm using it, and we'll discuss it.

The fallacy of the Thou shall not kill.

Then why doesn't God have to take responsibility for what he orders? And you as his follower for going along with it?

The Lord is Divine. It is not my place to question the orders of God.

Explain what kind of fallacy and how I'm using it, and we'll discuss it.

The fallacy of the Thou shall not kill.

And yet, I have already shown that the Bible isn't full of contradiction. I really wish people stop saying that for it isn't true in the least.

Really? Have you ever heard of the Dan Barker Challenge (http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone), also known as 'Leave no stone unturned'?

The premise is simple: tell us what happened on Easter. You don't have to prove that it really happened, all you have to do is tell us what happened in chronological order according to the Bible. There are only a few conditions:

1. You can't omit any detail from your explanation. This would involve the stories from Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20-21, Acts 1:3-12 and I Corinthians 15:3-8.

2. Your account can't contradict any of the biblical accounts.

So says you but the Bible says differently.

Sorry but Jesus fullfills the prophacy of the Messaih.

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.

I am willing to accept the consequences of my actions here on earth but my sins are forgiven thanks to the Blood of the Jesus Christ of Nazareth.


Ah, so now you only have to accept consequences on Earth; because you're willing to let Jesus take the blame for your actions, you don't have to face the consequences that everybody else does. Nice. Way to hide behind somebody else's blood while preaching "accepting consequences".


I accept the consequences of my action. I should have had a B in a class but because I did not do the work, I got a C+. that was the consequence of not doing the work I was supposed to do. I have accepted the grade.

Okay, let's try a more salient example. If you lived in a country with a bad political leader (pick whatever country or bad leader you like), and God killed your child to make a point to that leader, would you see it as just?

How you answer that question will tell so much about you, and I want to make sure you tell both your spouse and child...


My sins have been forgiven.

Forgiven because you let somebody else take the punishment (according to your religion). Great, way to take consequences.

The Lord is Divine. It is not my place to question the orders of God.

I thought the Nuremberg trials had conclusively shown that 'just following orders' is not an acceptable defence.

Sorry but Jesus fullfills the prophacy of the Messaih.

Could you give me the Bible passage please.

The Lord is Divine. It is not my place to question the orders of God.

There's a word for that kind of thinking.


The fallacy of the Thou shall not kill.

The Angel of Death doesn't kill? At God's command? Oh, you escape via semantics, call it "Thou Shall Not Murder".

So, why is not murder to kill a child to get at a political leader, while claiming to be loving? How is that justifiable?

That's the contradiction, you can't escape it by saying "Its not my place to question the orders of God". That's not even a real response, it just means you're against a wall and can't address the question.

Why evolution? The argument Novus Britannea gave seemed pretty self-sufficient --why do you think it took evolution to break the idea of original sin?

To be honest I was just trying to anticipate the counter arguments to his argument.

I thought the Nuremberg trials had conclusively shown that 'just following orders' is not an acceptable defence.

We are not talking about Nuremburg.

I thought the Nuremberg trials had conclusively shown that 'just following orders' is not an acceptable defence.

BINGO.

I didn't want to risk a Godwin by saying it, but I'm glad Corneliu's mentality is so starkly evident.

We are not talking about Nuremburg.

Actually, you are talking a great deal like the defendents there. Seriously, go look it up.

Actually, you are talking a great deal like the defendents there. Seriously, go look it up.

I have studied the Nuremburg trials Saint Curie for I am a history major.

To be honest I was just trying to anticipate the counter arguments to his argument.

Given time on this forum, you might notice that Corneliu is not exactly equipped for a particularly high level of tautological discourse.

Getting him to cogently respond to just a basic assertion is difficult enough.
Its not really chess with him.

We are not talking about Nuremburg.

Of course we're not, but the underlying principle is the same.

You said: "The Lord is Divine. It is not my place to question the orders of God."

This is exactly the kind of unquestioning obedience that was castigated by the prosecutors at Nuremberg.

Given time on this forum, you might notice that Corneliu is not exactly equipped for a particularly high level of tautological discourse.

Getting him to cogently respond to just a basic assertion is difficult enough.
Its not really chess with him.

Indeed. If you refute him suitably well he tends to vanish without answering you.

I have studied the Nuremburg trials Saint Curie for I am a history major.

Then why did you fail to recognize the very clear parallels between Nuremburg and what you're saying?

I've taught high school history students who could recognize that instantly, yet you didn't.

Given time on this forum, you might notice that Corneliu is not exactly equipped for a particularly high level of tautological discourse.

Getting him to cogently respond to just a basic assertion is difficult enough.
Its not really chess with him.

And arguing against the Lord does you no service in his eyes. We are all sinners and when we recognize that we are all sinners and accept the Lord Jesus, our sins will be forgiven and we will be able to be with Christ in Heaven.

Then why did you fail to recognize the very clear parallels between Nuremburg and what you're saying?

I've taught high school history students who could recognize that instantly, yet you didn't.

This is not a history debate. This is a debate about The Lord Savior Jesus who died for us so that we will be able to get to heaven through him instead of suffering death.

And arguing against the Lord does you no service in his eyes. We are all sinners and when we recognize that we are all sinners and accept the Lord Jesus, our sins will be forgiven and we will be able to be with Christ in Heaven.

Now Corneliu I realise you may have an inflated ego but surely a messiah complex is beyond even you. If the Lord comes down here then I'll be happy to have a reasoned conversation with him but I fail to see why refuting you is the same as refuting the Lord.

This is not a history debate. This is a debate about The Lord Savior Jesus who died for us so that we will be able to get to heaven through him instead of suffering death.

To be honest it's not much of a debate at all...

And arguing against the Lord does you no service in his eyes. We are all sinners and when we recognize that we are all sinners and accept the Lord Jesus, our sins will be forgiven and we will be able to be with Christ in Heaven.

Thank you for proving my point about the nature and character of your reasoning, Corneliu.

Your Lord (or your version of him) is somebody who must be defended with the statement "Well, who am I to question his orders?"

Helping me show that was the best thing you could've done for my position.

Who would want to serve in the eyes of a Thing like that?

This is not a history debate. This is a debate about The Lord Savior Jesus who died for us so that we will be able to get to heaven through him instead of suffering death.

That debate includes your claim of basis in the Old Testament, which includes the child-killings ordered by your God, which you responded to with "Well, who am I to question God's orders?", which very squarely plants us at a warcrimes trial.

Since you opened the door to academic qualificaitons, I have to ask. Do your professors ever try to help you develop your specious reasoning into something a bit more sound?

Now Corneliu I realise you may have an inflated ego but surely a messiah complex is beyond even you. If the Lord comes down here then I'll be happy to have a reasoned conversation with him but I fail to see why refuting you is the same as refuting the Lord.

You won't be having a reasoned discussion with him if you are not a believer.

To be honest it's not much of a debate at all...

Your right for the word of the Lord is on my side for the Truth is within me.

Thank you for proving my point about the nature and character of your reasoning, Corneliu.

Your Lord (or your version of him) is somebody who must be defended with the statement "Well, who am I to question his orders?"

Helping me show that was the best thing you could've done for my position.

Who would want to serve in the eyes of a Thing like that?

I do not have to defend Him but I will proclaim His truth to the world.

You won't be having a reasoned discussion with him if you are not a believer.

Because evidently Jesus, like Corneliu, is unable to contend with anybody who doesn't already believe what he wants them to believe...

Such a mighty God..."What I say is True, so long as you believe its True axiomatically out of hand."

Your right for the word of the Lord is on my side for the Truth is within me.

No, it's because you're really making any points.

Tell you what, you can choose the debate:

1. Defend your claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible.
2. Defend your claim that Jesus was the heir of David and Soloman.
3. A topic of your choice.

If the truth is within you then it shouldn't be a problem for you. Pick any topic you like my friend.

You won't be having a reasoned discussion with him if you are not a believer.

Well my invitation's open. He's free to come down for a chat any time he likes.

I do not have to defend Him but I will proclaim His truth to the world.

You still don't see how the way you "proclaim" your religion is counterproductive?

That, after hearing your words, Christianity (at least your version of it) looks worse?

You all got WAY off track. The question is whether or not you have faith in God. I do and I will tell you why. As someone who was severely injured in an accident, I have a personal perspective of the suffering that God allows to happen in this world. Some of you might see this as all a bunch of spiritual mumbo-jumbo but as someone who has suffered alot I see it all pretty clearly. God allows people to suffer because it is His or Her (We will find out when we die) Will. Some could see this as cruel or vindictive or un-divine but it really is just pruning the bushes. Jesus (or Issa for Muslims) tells us that the human race is like a grapevine and that God prunes us, so that we can grow from it and be better or sometimes die that is where free will comes in. Some people have just said accept everything from God without question, but God realizes that that is a crazy request that human nature is to act in our own interest, ignore other people, want to be independent, and question everything. He/She wants a real faith and trust not blind obedience that does not utilizes the brain that God gave us. Animals can follow but only humans can trust and that's what God want from us, to trust in things unseen which is the definition of faith. This may sound preachy or arrogant to some of you and I am sorry if any of you feel that way but I wanted to all to see this from a different perspective a living God not a dusty old God from a 2,000 year old book or from a proud independent "scientific" atheist perspective (no offense to any of you). This why I believe in God and how I believe in God. :cool:

It is not against the Law to put someone to death if that is the sentence of the crime that was committed.
If you really believe this, why did Jesus save the adulterous woman from death Corneliu?

If you really believe this, why did Jesus save the adulterous woman from death Corneliu?

For he had compassion and told her to go and sin no more.

You all got WAY off track. The question is whether or not you have faith in God.
This thread is always off track... :D

You all got WAY off track. The question is whether or not you have faith in God. I do and I will tell you why. As someone who was severely injured in an accident, I have a personal perspective of the suffering that God allows to happen in this world. Some of you might see this as all a bunch of spiritual mumbo-jumbo but as someone who has suffered alot I see it all pretty clearly. God allows people to suffer because it is His or Her (We will find out when we die) Will. Some could see this as cruel or vindictive or un-divine but it really is just pruning the bushes. Jesus (or Issa for Muslims) tells us that the human race is like a grapevine and that God prunes us, so that we can grow from it and be better or sometimes die that is where free will comes in.

So suffering occurs to give us the chance to either weather it or just grin and take it? We're being forced to play a divine game of Chicken?

Welcome to the forum by the way, you'd better get used to threads going off topic. :)

Some people have just said accept everything from God without question, but God realizes that that is a crazy request that human nature is to act in our own interest, ignore other people, want to be independent, and question everything. He/She wants a real faith and trust not blind obedience that utilizes the brain that God gave us. Animals can follow but only humans can trust and that's what God want from us, to trust in things unseen which is the definition of faith. This may sound preachy or arrogant to some of you and I am sorry if any of you feel that way but I wanted to all to see this from a different perspective a living God not a dusty old God from a 2,000 year old book or from a proud independent "scientific" atheist perspective (no offense to any of you). This why I believe in God and how I believe in God. :cool:

If that's what makes you happy my friend then go with it but I have yet to see any reason for belief.

This thread is always off track... :D

This forum is always off track... :p

This forum is always off track... :p

This I agree with :D

Ah, so now you only have to accept consequences on Earth; because you're willing to let Jesus take the blame for your actions, you don't have to face the consequences that everybody else does. Nice. Way to hide behind somebody else's blood while preaching "accepting consequences".

Because of the Fall of Man, no human has the right to enter Heaven. However, God realized this, and sent his Son Jesus Christ (who, like the Father and the Spirit, was already existing) in order to absolve his Elect of the wages of sin so some of His creation may experience Heaven. It was in His Mercy that he absolved his Elect by sending Christ to Earth to die and then conquer death. It was by this conquering that His Elect could entre His Eternal Kingdom.


Okay, let's try a more salient example. If you lived in a country with a bad political leader (pick whatever country or bad leader you like), and God killed your child to make a point to that leader, would you see it as just?

Yes. You have to remember, the Israelites were the Lord's Chosen People, and the Pharoah would not let them go. Too bad for them.

How you answer that question will tell so much about you, and I want to make sure you tell both your spouse and child...

Any man who places anything above God in their priorities is breaking the First Commandment, and is not truely worshipping God as God.


Forgiven because you let somebody else take the punishment (according to your religion). Great, way to take consequences.

Correct. Otherwise, no one would get into Heaven. I've already addressed this.

You all got WAY off track. The question is whether or not you have faith in God.

Sometimes forum discussions branch into related areas. Certainly, the Old Testament and its implications can be related to the thread topic.


I do and I will tell you why. As someone who was severely injured in an accident, I have a personal perspective of the suffering that God allows to happen in this world. Some of you might see this as all a bunch of spiritual mumbo-jumbo but as someone who has suffered alot I see it all pretty clearly. God allows people to suffer because it is His or Her (We will find out when we die) Will. Some could see this as cruel or vindictive or un-divine but it really is just pruning the bushes. Jesus (or Issa for Muslims) tells us that the human race is like a grapevine and that God prunes us, so that we can grow from it and be better or sometimes die that is where free will comes in.

However you choose to cope is fine. I personally take the view that suffering is part of life, with or without God. Suffering can sometimes be avoided by human choice, sometimes not. I don't think its productive to blame God in either case, although some people's religious mentality can most certainly be blamed in some cases.


Some people have just said accept everything from God without question, but God realizes that that is a crazy request that human nature is to act in our own interest, ignore other people, want to be independent, and question everything. He/She wants a real faith and trust not blind obedience that utilizes the brain that God gave us. Animals can follow but only humans can trust and that's what God want from us, to trust in things unseen which is the definition of faith.

The difference between "blind following" and "faithful trusting" is the thinnest semantic distinction, and they are chosen between by only the most untennable interpretational bias.


This may sound preachy or arrogant to some of you and I am sorry if any of you feel that way but I wanted to all to see this from a different perspective a living God not a dusty old God from a 2,000 year old book or from a proud independent "scientific" atheist perspective (no offense to any of you). This why I believe in God and how I believe in God. :cool:

That "dusty old God from a 2,000 year old book" is, according to Biblical Christians (and Muslims who include that scripture as canon) the defining basis for your "living God". They thus cannot separate them so callously.

For he had compassion and told her to go and sin no more.

Correct. A Second Chance.

Corneliu, your obedience to God is admirably but you must realize that an essential part of the New Testament is Mercy. When Jesus saved the woman from stoning he confronted her accusers with their own sin and therefore they were not fit to judge her because like St. James says "If you violate any one part of the Law you break all of it." Therefore no one is fit to judge anyone else only God therefore you cannot judge those who deny God in this forum or me or anyone else and they cannot judge you.

This I agree with :D

*faints* :eek:

Corneliu, your obedience to God is admirably but you must realize that an essential part of the New Testament is Mercy. When Jesus saved the woman from stoning he confronted her accusers with their own sin and therefore they were not fit to judge her because like St. James says "If you violate any one part of the Law you break all of it." Therefore no one is fit to judge anyone else only God therefore you cannot judge those who deny God in this forum or me or anyone else and they cannot judge you.

I have not judged them in anyway. I have been pointing out what they are missing.

For he had compassion and told her to go and sin no more.
Precisely. When Jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" he was saying that we've all sinned throughout our lives, one way or another, and so we are unfit to judge anyone for their owns sins.

Wow, 9:30 already. Be seeing you. :)

Precisely. When Jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" he was saying that we've all sinned throughout our lives, one way or another, and so we are unfit to judge anyone for their owns sins.

That is indeed correct.

Because of the Fall of Man, no human has the right to enter Heaven. However, God realized this, and sent his Son Jesus Christ (who, like the Father and the Spirit, was already existing) in order to absolve his Elect of the wages of sin so some of His creation may experience Heaven. It was in His Mercy that he absolved his Elect by sending Christ to Earth to die and then conquer death. It was by this conquering that His Elect could entre His Eternal Kingdom.

God "realized" this? God (if your religion is correct) mandated that, chose that, decreed that, so he has to take responsibility for it. To say he "realized" it, as if its some rule out of his control, is absurd.

So, why could a perfect God only come up with a plan that saved some, and tortures those who don't do what they want?

Perfect beings don't have such a weak yield rate in their planning. And it isn't really "Mercy" to kill somebody to assuage your anger at somebody else. Real Mercy is to say, "Well, you screwed up, try harder next time".


Yes. You have to remember, the Israelites were the Lord's Chosen People, and the Pharoah would not let them go. Too bad for them.

No, too bad for those children. But thanks for putting it that way, it demonstrates clearly why this religious mindset leads to horrible, putrid things.

Funny how an all-loving God would have a "Chosen People"....


Any man who places anything above God in their priorities is breaking the First Commandment, and is not truely worshipping God as God.


So, you've just demonstrated what I wanted demonstrated. You believe that any man not willing to see a child killed for the crimes of another is not "worshipping God as God". Its that mentality that I want people to see in your version of Christianity.

When Jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" he was saying that we've all sinned throughout our lives, one way or another, and so we are unfit to judge anyone for their owns sins.
That is indeed correct.
Then you are agreeing that no man is fit to condemn anyone to death for their sins...

Corneliu, how was that a nice post?

First off, I never argued that a some God or other necesarrily doesn't exist (although I don't believe in any particular God), I argued that if the God of the Bible exists, he would be a murderous entity that does vile things. I then used scripture to support that.
Now we are getting somewhere. You believe that there is a possibility of the existence of a God or Gods?

As to it being unprovable that there is no God, its unprovable that there is, so that objection disputes your own position as much as the athiest one.
I do not see how the two thoughts are equal. There have been words written that suggest that a God or Gods do exist. Your unenviable task would to be to try and prove that those written words are indeed false. Even if you were to succeed in that impossible task, it still would not prove that there is no God.

How is it illogical to use the opposing side's evidence to demonstrate flaws in their position?
It is totally illogical. For you to argue that God is a "monster", as per your quotes from the Bible, then you would have to accept that there is some truth to your argument. If there is some truth to your argument, then the possibility of the existence of a God or Gods is greater then a blanket statement of stating that there is no God.

The other problem you encounter in your argument is that you base it on circumstantial evidence. Using the Bible, as your proof, you have totally condemned God for crimes against humanity and you haven't allowed God the opportunity to defend Himself. You have not given God any benefit of the doubt. You are guilty of contempt prior to investgation of all the facts. You indeed may be bearing false witness.

That is another problem with your debating points, in that you believe that you have all the facts and that you are indeed correct. I call that ego. Unless you are God, and you obviously are not, then only He has all the answers.

I believe that God is a loving and caring God, and perhaps one day He will share His truths with me and others. Until then, I will give Him the benefit of the doubt and put my faith in Him. I certainly cannot put my faith in you.

All I'm out to do is to spread God's word and His love to the populace. I know people will not accept him, and I grieve for those who will not make it into heaven.
That, my friend, is where you are wrong.

First, why a 'He'? Second, for that matter, why do you think there is a God at all? Thirdly, is this supposed to be a religious forum? If there truly is/were/was a righteous and kind God, why would it create a heaven or hell? Suffering for all eternity for 'sins' you committed for what? minutes? makes no sense. Suffering for believing in a different religion shouldn't consign anyone to 'Hell;' people should be allowed to have the freedom to worship whatever they want.

Then you are agreeing that no man is fit to condemn anyone to death for their sins...

I already said who am I to judge. I leave the judging to the Supreme Being.

Life is not fair and not democratic and does not recognize any freedom but we only have free will and it is our choice how we live our lives.

The difference between "blind following" and "faithful trusting" is the thinnest semantic distinction, and they are chosen between by only the most untennable interpretational bias.
Not so fast SC. There's a huge difference between blind following and faithful trusting. "Blind following" implies "no questions asked", "faithful trusting" doesn't. You can place a certain amount of trust and faith on someone but not give them a blank cheque... There's a big difference...

Life is not fair and not democratic and does not recognize any freedom but we only have free will and it is our choice how we live our lives.

Indeed, you are correct.

I already said who am I to judge. I leave the judging to the Supreme Being.
Then be careful with your words Corneliu and don't say things such as:
My sins have been forgiven.
You have not been judged yet.

Not so fast SC. There's a huge difference between blind following and faithful trusting. "Blind following" implies "no questions asked", "faithful trusting" doesn't. You can place a certain amount of trust and faith on someone but not give them a blank cheque... There's a big difference...

That is absolutely correct and that fear to acknowledge the existence of something greater than ourselves is the problem with all atheists, they are afraid of the idea that they should have to rely on something so mysterious and unpredictable as God. The blind following is the problem for some people like radical fundamentalists of all religions.

Now we are getting somewhere. You believe that there is a possibility of the existence of a God or Gods?

For the fifth time, I don't believe in any particular God or Gods, but I don't preclude any possibility of their existence. My point now, as before, is that:

The God, whom I believe to be fictional character, that is described in your Bible has done vile things. Therefore, if your bible is true, and he is not a fictional character, He is a monster.


I do not see how the two thoughts are equal. There have been words written that suggest that a God or Gods do exist.

There have been words that suggest Gods don't exist, also. And words that suggest Zeus, space aliens, body thetans, and leprechuans exists.


Your unenviable task would to be to try and prove that those written words are indeed false. Even if you were to succeed in that impossible task, it still would not prove that there is no God.

Nor would it disprove aliens, leprechauns, or pixies.


It is totally illogical. For you to argue that God is a "monster", as per your quotes from the Bible, then you would have to accept that there is some truth to your argument.

Again, you clearly have little formal training in Logic.

CanuckHeaven, to point out the flaws in somebody else's argument, you have to reference there position, talk about their "evidence". If you believe the bible is true, your God did monstrous things. If you don't believe your bible is true, say so. (sorry about the repetition, everybody, but until CanuckHeaven understands the concept of using the tautological implications of a premise to illustrate its flaws, I have drive the point home).


If there is some truth to your argument, then the possibility of the existence of a God or Gods is greater then a blanket statement of stating that there is no God.

For the last time, not precluding the existence of God is nowhere near the same things as a blanket statement that there is no God. You are the only one making a blanket statement, when you say there definitely is a God.

I am merely point out that if your bible is true, your God did horrible things. Scripture supports that, no matter how much you want to dodge it.


The other problem you encounter in your argument is that you base it on circumstantial evidence. Using the Bible, as your proof, you have totally condemned God for crimes against humanity and you haven't allowed God the opportunity to defend Himself.

Your God is mute? He can answer these allegations at any time. Circumstantial evidence? You mean, the Bible? The same evidence that defines biblical christianity?

Well, if that evidence is no good, neither is biblical Christianity...

The point is, I address the bible as YOUR evidence, and point out what would be true if your bible is true. If you don't want the bible presented as representative of your position, say you don't consider the bible true. If you do consider the Bible is true, you must acknowledge the scriptual evidence that if the bible is true, your God did vile things.

I don't personally believe the bible is true, so I'm not really accusing God of anything (so I dont' think God is necessarily real). But, to drill the point to you, if the bible is true, your God is guilty of those things. Can you understand that?


You have not given God any benefit of the doubt. You are guilty of contempt prior to investgation of all the facts. You indeed may be bearing false witness.

That is another problem with your debating points, in that you believe that you have all the facts and that you are indeed correct. I call that ego. Unless you are God, and you obviously are not, then only He has all the answers.

You don't believe that you are correct? You haven't even addressed the facts at hand. You're still dodging the Pascal's Wager thread, you dodged my earlier response to your post wherein I (and others) went to great length to prove how demonstrating a contradiction in the opposing position is not a fallacy.

I say that God may or may not exist. You say God exists. Which of us doesn't have all the facts, which of us is making blanket statements?

I simply point out that IF the bible is true, your God is guilty of horrible things. The Bible itself shows that, so if you believe the Bible is true...


I believe that God is a loving and caring God, and perhaps one day He will share His truths with me and others. Until then, I will give Him the benefit of the doubt and put my faith in Him. I certainly cannot put my faith in you.

I'm not asking for faith, I'm asking you to address the issues:

Question I: Is the Bible true, and if so, to what extent? Literally, figuratively, inerrantly, partially? Once you stop dodging that, we can "get somewhere".

P.S. Do you seriously not understand how "proof by contradiction" works?
You don't see how examing the opposition's evidence and showing the ramifications of assuming it to be true (particular the negative or paradoxical ramifications) would show the opposition's position to be flawed?

Not so fast SC. There's a huge difference between blind following and faithful trusting. "Blind following" implies "no questions asked", "faithful trusting" doesn't. You can place a certain amount of trust and faith on someone but not give them a blank cheque... There's a big difference...

The extent to which there cheque is not blank is by definition the extent to which you don't trust. If your trust is complete, your cheque is blank.

Do I believe in limited trust? Sure, but I don't think most of the religious folks on this thread are talking about that kind.

Assis, your mentality here is a lot more Christ-like than just about anything I've seen on this forum.
I'm not worthy of such a compliment but I thank you anyway...
I'm sure we disagree on a lot, but what you've said in this quote gladdens me that there are religious peole who take this view.
Hence why I said before that I believed a lot of atheists would be pleasantly surprised with Jesus, if they were given the chance to meet him... Well, in a way, this was your chance. I'm not worthy of being compared to him but I try to be "as he would be". For me, that is being a Christian.

I believe that God is a loving and caring God, and perhaps one day He will share His truths with me and others

Why, may I ask, would a God not share its truths with everyone?

Also, if a God exists, then there is no free will, and that's not kind or caring. Destiny can be a cruel thing.

Why should one being be allowed to do whatever it wants while all other beings cannot and are restrained by forces (that, if you believe in God) were created by God.

Why would a God create the universe in the first place?

And if you believe that the Old and New Testaments are the direct word of God, God is not very forgiving. The punishment for disobeying your parents should be a talking-to, not a stoning. God hardening Pharaoh's heart in Egypt and subsequently causing the deaths of many innocent Egyptians just to razzle and dazzle other cultures and people is cruel and callous.

If such a being exists, I would like to give it a piece of my mind, for some perversities of the universe are twisted and unnecessary.

Why can't people grasp that maybe there is no 'Creator' or Supreme Being? Perhaps the universe formed on its own. People may say that it seems impossible to them that a universe this complex could form by itself, but scientifically, everything is possible, so thus there could be no divinity at all.

Why should we bow down, pray, and worship a supreme being? Just because (if it exists) it has special powers, that doesn't mean we should worship it. As a matter of fact, all humans, animals, and any other beings in the universe (including a potential God) should all be equal, in the eyes of one another, not in the eyes of some 'omnipotent' being.

If a god exists, then what if the entire universe is God itself taking on different forms?

Who is not to say that a god might not be mortal, or that there isn't an entire race of godly beings in the sky?

For that matter, who is not to say that this isn't all some computer simulation on some supreme computer screen? Why would a god have to be a man, woman, or great cloud of smoke?

If a god exists, and some people's presumptions are that it would be/is omnibenevolent (all good), then why is there pain, suffering, violence, and death in the world?

What if we don't want to be ruled by a god who makes it so that unconsciously we have no say in our own lives and are being subtly and subconsciously controlled to conform to its plan?

The extent to which there cheque is not blank is by definition the extent to which you don't trust. If your trust is complete, your cheque is blank.

Do I believe in limited trust? Sure, but I don't think most of the religious folks on this thread are talking about that kind.
As the person who first mentioned blind obedience, I should explain what I ment. Blind Obedience is the what happens when your beliefs become too legalistic which is what happened to Judaism and was one of the reasons why Jesus came. He wanted a religion where serving God by serving other people was paramount and He wanted to offer people a clean slate but His religion has become too legalistic such the case with radical fundamentalists where people are too eager to condemn people and too scared to love other people. That is blind obedience.

Blah blah blah, you guys take these things too seriously.

The truth is no one knows. But all evidence proves to there being no god, even though there is no solid proof. Revelations according to (i think its) James states that people don't go to hell forever, they simply go there long enough to atone for their sins and everyone goes to heaven, just the more bad things you do the longer you stay.

Take religion for one purpose and one purpose only. It is great to give people a base set of morals and values. I being an atheist even appreciate my protestant upbringing, and i believe it has made me a better person. The bible holds stories that help you live your life better and be a better person. But believing in a so called "god" is just absurd. Think about it. Do you really believe in god, religious people? Or are you, like many, just afraid of going to a place like "hell"? Not going to hell is the whole reasoning behind catholicism.

If you take my advice, i'd would say try and be the best person you can. But don't let the ideals of religion hold you back from what you really want to do, because our time in this life is scarce. Bad things happen to good people not because god says so, but because there is no real "bad" or "Good" in life, things just happen.

Plus i mean, how can you believe you can retain your ability to think without a brain? Do something productive with your time people. Instead of blabbling over a stupid subject like this (read: stupid because at the moment there is no way you'll come to a conclusion, and people will believe what they believe and you will NOT change it with simple words), try to find out what happens after you die. Do that and you solve everything. Then again, good luck trying to make THAT work.

In conclusion, stfu. Hope that helps ;)

I'm not worthy of such a compliment but I thank you anyway...

Hence why I said before that I believed a lot of atheists would be pleasantly surprised with Jesus, if they were given the chance to meet him... Well, in a way, this was your chance. I'm not worthy of being compared to him but I try to be "as he would be". For me, that is being a Christian.

You've got a few erroneous presuppositions about me, Assis.

This was not "my chance", I was a practicing devout Christian for years.

I've "met" the same information about Jesus that is just as sound as the information that formed your view.

Please don't assume that because somebody doesn't believe the things you believe, that it can only be because they haven't been exposed to it. And yes, you did assume that.

CanuckHeaven indulge the following hypothetical situation for a moment:

Assuming I had a diary, you found this diary & it contained numerous passages describing how I'd killed & mangled infants.

Would this diary on its own, be proof that I'd killed & mangled infants?
If you'd consider it proof, would you not consider me a vile person?

What SC & I have been trying to get across, is that if your Bible is true, then your god is not a very nice entity at all - just like if my hypothetical diary was true, I'd not be a very nice person.

As the person who first mentioned blind obedience, I should explain what I ment. Blind Obedience is the what happens when your beliefs become too legalistic which is what happened to Judaism and was one of the reasons why Jesus came. He wanted a religion where serving God by serving other people was paramount and He wanted to offer people a clean slate but His religion has become too legalistic such the case with radical fundamentalists where people are too eager to condemn people and too scared to love other people. That is blind obedience.

Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree on this use of language.

What you are describing to me is doctrinal complexity, the scalar value of which is, to me, very separate from the lack of questioning or the emphasis on obedience.

However, you're entitled to your interpretations, and I'll try to make note of how you mean the term, and regard it accordingly.

CanuckHeaven indulge the following hypothetical situation for a moment:

Assuming I had a diary, you found this diary & it contained numerous passages describing how I'd killed & mangled infants.

Would this diary on its own, be proof that I'd killed & mangled infants?
If you'd consider it proof, would you not consider me a vile person?

What SC & I have been trying to get across, is that if your Bible is true, then your god is not a very nice entity at all - just like if my hypothetical diary was true, I'd not be a very nice person.

Thank you for the effort, Sim, that's a great example. Let's hope anybody is listening...

Well, that's the wife calling, I gotta run...

We should realize that what we are all talking about the human race has been debating and killing each other over for thousands of years for instance it took Christianity 500 years to finally agree on what it believed and still Christians don't agree with each other. We need to realize that eah one of us has God interact with them differently because we are each very different people with different experiences that have shaped us and we need to accept that. This is us->:headbang:

Why, may I ask, would a God not share its truths with everyone?

But he has shared his truth with everyone.

The extent to which there cheque is not blank is by definition the extent to which you don't trust. If your trust is complete, your cheque is blank.

Do I believe in limited trust? Sure, but I don't think most of the religious folks on this thread are talking about that kind.
Well, I would argue that no one is worthy of unlimited trust and my guess is that even Jesus would not preach blind following... I'm pretty certain he has a teaching regarding that but I cannot find it. However, he did say:

"If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

Which kind-of-implies that no one should follow blindly, because they risk the leader being blind as well...

Well, I would argue that no one is worthy of unlimited trust and my guess is that even Jesus would not preach blind following... I'm pretty certain he has a teaching regarding that but I cannot find it. However, he did say:

"If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

Which kind-of-implies that no one should follow blindly, because they risk the leader being blind as well...

But a literally blind person is at least aware of it. Someone "following blindly" rarely sees themselves as such.

Its the people on the thread who say "Who am I to question the orders of God?" that I find most deeply concerning, because that attitude has well-known results.

A few of them won't even address the actions that are scripturally purported to their God, twisting and turning to avoid the fact that, if they believe the bible is true, they are ratifying horrible things.

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."

Ahem...

All I'm out to do is to spread God's word and His love to the populace. I know people will not accept him, and I grieve for those who will not make it into heaven.

So is he wrong or am I?

Actions alone does not get one into heaven but faith in the Lord Jesus for it is written "Except a man be BORN-AGAIN he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven."

God "realized" this? God (if your religion is correct) mandated that, chose that, decreed that, so he has to take responsibility for it. To say he "realized" it, as if its some rule out of his control, is absurd.

You're right, I chose the wrong word there. My fault.

So, why could a perfect God only come up with a plan that saved some, and tortures those who don't do what they want?

Because that's what He wanted? I don't know why He did this. If I could explain everything He does, then there wouldn't be a trinity, 'cause I'd be there, too.

Perfect beings don't have such a weak yield rate in their planning. And it isn't really "Mercy" to kill somebody to assuage your anger at somebody else. Real Mercy is to say, "Well, you screwed up, try harder next time".

Well, the Pharoah had to be convinced somehow. Again, if I could explain everything, I'd be God, too.

No, too bad for those children. But thanks for putting it that way, it demonstrates clearly why this religious mindset leads to horrible, putrid things.

No, it is your inability to comprehend the fact that God thinks on a higher level than you do. It is your own arrogance that is getting in the way, to think that you would be so high of a being as to be able to understand and think like God! THIS is why I never venture into a religious debate with non-Christians, because they cannot comprehend, due to their inherent arrogance, that something might possibly be able to think on a higher plane than them!

All of this is God's creation, he has a right to do what He damn well pleases with it! He has a plan for all of us, and simply because you may not understand why someone had to die doesn't make it wrong. It simple means that you cannot think on the same plane as God -- and no human can! (Other than Jesus)

So, you've just demonstrated what I wanted demonstrated. You believe that any man not willing to see a child killed for the crimes of another is not "worshipping God as God". Its that mentality that I want people to see in your version of Christianity.

Define willing. It's unfortunate that they had to die, but it is of His plan, of which I am not educated of, because I, being human hence fallen, could not understand! Again, it stems from your arrogance.

Oh, my version of Christianity? Then what's your "correct" version of Christianity, hmm?

Thanks.

Aside from the fact that I disbelieve in God, that's another reason why Christianity strikes me less as a benevelont, warmhearted religion and more as a cold, calculating system. I'm not particularly interested in typing up my entire thesis of how people are unjustly cast into hell for lack of belief in God, so if you're interested, check this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11033999&postcount=2975) post out.

Then you were never an atheist...
I sincerely doubted the existence of God. Perhaps I should've said agnostic? Inconsequential, either way. I hope you don't see this as something to hold against me. That would be foolish.

I sincerely doubted the existence of God. Perhaps I should've said agnostic? Inconsequential, either way. I hope you don't see this as something to hold against me. That would be foolish.

No, but I do find it funny you call yourself a Catholic, hence a Christian (athough being a Calvinist I can debate that :p), yet do not truely and fully believe in the existance of God.

I suspect it is an attempt to rebuff people like me... raised as Christian, but 'saw through it', and are now living happily satisfied Atheistic lives.

So - some Christians 'claim' to have been Atheists, so that they can claim to have lived both sides of the track, but 'seen the light, again'.
Trust me, I couldn't care less.

No, but I do find it funny you call yourself a Catholic, hence a Christian (athough being a Calvinist I can debate that :p), yet do not truely and fully believe in the existance of God.
I do, actually.

Thanks.

Aside from the fact that I disbelieve in God, that's another reason why Christianity strikes me less as a benevelont, warmhearted religion and more as a cold, calculating system. I'm not particularly interested in typing up my entire thesis of how people are unjustly cast into hell for lack of belief in God, so if you're interested, check this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11033999&postcount=2975) post out.

Sorry Wormia but unless you are Born-Again, you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. I myself believe in His Son Jesus who died for all of us so that if we believe in him, our sins (which would lead us to death) will be forgiven and we will have eternal life.

There's a god but he's very, very tiny.

Aside from the fact that I disbelieve in God, that's another reason why Christianity strikes me less as a benevelont, warmhearted religion and more as a cold, calculating system.

Well, I'd have to add the fact that my friend believes that it is "morally wrong" for me to engage in any homosexual activity, but having "homosexual tendencies" isn't a sin. He says he is still my friend, but how much of a friend can he be if I have to claim that I don't want to be engaged in a relationship whenever he's around?

Sorry Wormia but unless you are Born-Again, you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. I myself believe in His Son Jesus who died for all of us so that if we believe in him, our sins (which would lead us to death) will be forgiven and we will have eternal life.

I don't believe in that. The reason I don't believe in it is because, frankly, I find it illogical to assume that our Universe and everything in it was created by any sort of deity. I further find it illogical to assume that this deity exists because I have not sensed him in any manner. Thus, I conclude that he does not exist.

Yet, according to your religion, I'm going to Hell. I'm a good person, but I'm going to Hell simply because I don't believe in God. According to your religion, God was the one who gave me the tools I used to arrive at the conclusion that he doesn't exist.

But he has shared his truth with everyone.

Wouldn't He make sure that we all knew it was truth, then?

They eat dust too. Don't they?

EDIT: My mistake. Getting my snakes and snails mixed up again! Pretty soon I'll be getting my mammals and avians mixed up too.

Yes - snakes eat dust. Little known fact that... stilllargely unknown by that 'so-called' science.

Well, I'd have to add the fact that my friend believes that it is "morally wrong" for me to engage in any homosexual activity, but having "homosexual tendencies" isn't a sin. He says he is still my friend, but how much of a friend can he be if I have to claim that I don't want to be engaged in a relationship whenever he's around?

Yeah. Intolerance (frequently spawned and propogated by religions) is killing the world.

I don't believe in that. The reason I don't believe in it is because, frankly, I find it illogical to assume that our Universe and everything in it was created by any sort of deity. I further find it illogical to assume that this deity exists because I have not sensed him in any manner. Thus, I conclude that he does not exist.

But the Lord does exist. He has shown himself throughout human history.

Yet, according to your religion, I'm going to Hell. I'm a good person, but I'm going to Hell simply because I don't believe in God. According to your religion, God was the one who gave me the tools I used to arrive at the conclusion that he doesn't exist.

All I can do is spread the word of the Lord God.

You've got to have faith.

If I have faith.... snails will melt?

Or do you just mean - if you WANT to believe it hard enough, you can overlook the fact that it's a work of fiction?

But the Lord does exist. He has shown himself throughout human history.

He hasn't to me. He hasn't proven to me, personally, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he exists. If he did, I would stand corrected. But he hasn't shown himself to me, he hasn't presented empirical evidence of his existence.

As far as I am concerned, God is nonexistent. I won't be going to Heaven or Hell, because neither of those exist either. And frankly, I'm enjoying my life.

All I can do is spread the word of the Lord God.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Wouldn't He make sure that we all knew it was truth, then?

He has shown us the Truth but it is up to us if we choose to accept the truth or not. I have accepted the truth.

Reading the last couple of pages leads me to conclude that a lot of people aren't aware that "knowledge" and "faith" are mutually exclusive. To know is to not require faith. To have faith is to admit one does not know. I won't presume to say which is a better choice for anyone, but try not to confuse them too much.

He hasn't to me.

Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

Sorry for what? :confused:

Sorry Wormia but unless you are Born-Again, you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. I myself believe in His Son Jesus who died for all of us so that if we believe in him, our sins (which would lead us to death) will be forgiven and we will have eternal life.
Prove it.

He has shown us the Truth but it is up to us if we choose to accept the truth or not. I have accepted the truth.

How has he shown us truth?

Sorry Wormia but unless you are Born-Again, you will not see the kingdom of Heaven. I myself believe in His Son Jesus who died for all of us so that if we believe in him, our sins (which would lead us to death) will be forgiven and we will have eternal life.

THen how do you explain that the woman who is the original subject of this post sinned less and yet was led to death earlier? Does God like playing tricks on people? I should think not. In acutallity the only kind of religion I can believe in is one that teaches religious tolerance (which is why i'm Unitarian Universalist), since then there would be no more "you will go to hell if you don't believe me" and religious wars. The reason religious tolerance must be taught is that that way (if you believe in God) God will show himself in the way he truly is, instead of the way people (who are imperfect comared to God) tell you God is.

Prove it.

"Except a man be born-again, he cannot see the Kingdom of heaven.

"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.

How about saying all that rubbish to Jesus, without even listening to what he had to say first? Because my guess is that most atheists would identify themselves much more with Jesus than they can ever imagine, if only they had the chance...

Blaming Jesus for the crimes of the Church is the same as blaming Karl Marx for the crimes of Nazism.

Sure.

Which part is rubbish?

It has to be said - most of the Atheists I have known... those that identify themselves as such - do so as a reaction... once they realise the no longer believe (some) religion... mostly (of those I have known) escapees from Christianity.

Most of us HAVE 'said all this to Jesus'... and eventually, we have found ourselves waiting for an answer from bones.

How has he shown us truth?

He has shown us the truth through his apostles and through His Son.

"Except a man be born-again, he cannot see the Kingdom of heaven.

"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.
Provide evidence that the bible is accurate.

Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe.

God, being an all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent being should understand why I don't believe in him. I haven't been given truth to my satisfaction. If I am proven wrong, I will gladly admit so. I haven't been.

He has shown us the truth through his apostles and through His Son.
Provide evidence of the existence of Jesus.

I do, actually.

:( Oops, my fault. I misinterpreted agnostic as to meaning "don't believe one way or the other," not as in "you can't prove anything." Sorry.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe./QUOTE]

This was taken out of context and thus lost its true meaning.
"Do you believe because you have seen me? More blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

Notice the more in there. This implies that those who believe only after seeing are still blessed.

God, being an all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent being should understand why I don't believe in him. I haven't been given truth to my satisfaction. If I am proven wrong, I will gladly admit so. I haven't been.

Don't be caught being wrong when you are judged before the Throne.

Okay,

If everybody followed the Bible completely and totally all the time, no one will have disrespected their parents.

Yes, disrespectful offspring who do not repent should be put to death.

The bible was originally written in (ancient) Greek and in this language there are different words for murder and execute (as there are in English); so blame the translator, not the inspiration of God for any 'anomalies' that you may come across.

Try reading the Bible; not nit-picking its translation.

Actually - a substantial amount of it was written in Hebrew, and some in Aramaic.

As far as I'm concerned unless you've read it in the original tongues, you've really never read it, at all... you've just let someone else tell you what THEY thought it means.

He has shown us the truth through his apostles and through His Son.

For one, I've met none of them personally. Secondly, even if I had met them, I wouldn't believe until I personally saw something extraordinary, and even then I might have doubts. I'm sure God, being all-knowing and all-powerful, could figure out a way to convince me that it's the truth without infringing on the laws set forth in the Bible. He hasn't done that yet, either.

Sorry I have high expectations. I guess I'm going to Hell (sarcasm, obviously, I don't believe in a Hell).

Don't be caught being wrong when you are judged before the Throne.

The Throne doesn't exist, so you can calm down. I'll be fine.

Don't be caught being wrong when you are judged before the Throne.

The Throne doesn't exist, so you can calm down. I'll be fine.

Provide evidence of the existence of Jesus.

Jesus existed for the 3 main religions all believe in him. Some of the Jews and the Muslims consider him a prophet, Christians and some Jews considers him to be the Messiah.

So says you but those of us who are Christians, know differently. Jesus was of the House of David and he was born of a virgin. He fullfilled the prophacy of the Messiah.

Being born of a virgin is NOT a 'prophecy of Messiah'.

How am I supposed to take you seriously?

How was Jesus 'of the House of David'? Do you even KNOW about Jeconiah?

:( Oops, my fault. I misinterpreted agnostic as to meaning "don't believe one way or the other," not as in "you can't prove anything." Sorry.
I am only agnostic with regard to the Deity's true nature. I believe in the Trinity and so on, but beyond that I know little of the power itself. Before I regained my faith I was completely agnostic.

So says you but those of us who are Christians, know differently. Jesus was of the House of David and he was born of a virgin. He fullfilled the prophacy of the Messiah.

Being born of a virgin is NOT a 'prophecy of Messiah'.

How am I supposed to take you seriously?

How was Jesus 'of the House of David'? Do you even KNOW about Jeconiah?

The Throne doesn't exist, so you can calm down. I'll be fine.
Care to prove its non-existence?

And yet, I have already shown that the Bible isn't full of contradiction. I really wish people stop saying that for it isn't true in the least.

Actually - it IS... a number of times, over te last few years, I have posted lists of inconsistency, weakness and flat-out contradiction.

What you mean is - YOU haven't seen any contradiction... or, nothing you couldn't just pretend was unimportant.

Blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe.

This was taken out of context and thus lost its true meaning.
"Do you believe because you have seen me? More blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

Notice the more in there. This implies that those who believe only after seeing are still blessed.

John 20:29: Then Jesus told him "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.

*explaination from my Study Bible* Some people think they would believe in Jesus if they could see a definite sign or miracle. But Jesus says we are blessed if we can believe without seeing. We have all the proof we need in the words of the Bible and the testimony of believers. A physical appearance would not make Jesus any more real to us than he is now.

The Throne doesn't exist, so you can calm down. I'll be fine.

The Throne very much exist.

Being born of a virgin is NOT a 'prophecy of Messiah'.

How am I supposed to take you seriously?

Oh Dear God. It has been written that he would be born of a Virgin.

Care to prove its non-existence?

Ah, damn. You have me there. Of course, t'was intended as nothing more than quick wit. :D

There are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible. There are no inconsistencies either and it is most assuredly is not stupid.

Keep telling yourself that... I have just shown two 'stupidities'... I have previously shown dozens of inconsistencies and contradictions.

I think it has it's high points, as a text - but, it is my opinion - which is JUST as valid as your own - that there is also material that really IS just stupid.

Who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament?

Keep telling yourself that... I have just shown two 'stupidities'... I have previously shown dozens of inconsistencies and contradictions.

I think it has it's high points, as a text - but, it is my opinion - which is JUST as valid as your own - that there is also material that really IS just stupid.

Who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament?

Why should I answer your question? Oh yea...I don't have to answer. I know full well that the bible is not full of contradictions.

I can honestly say that the Bible is not full of contradictions for there are no contradictions in it.

You can say it honestly, but you'd be wrong.

You can say it honestly, but you'd be wrong.

I can say it honestly and not be wrong for the Bible does not have contradictions.

Who am I to question the Law of Moses. I am only a human, created in the image of the Lord?

How's THAT for the sin of pride?

Who told you YOU were created in the image of God?

How's THAT for the sin of pride?

Who told you YOU were created in the image of God?

God.

Sorry but Jesus fullfills the prophacy of the Messaih.

Sorry, my friend - but you've proved you wouldn't know 'the prophecies of Messiah' if they nailed you to a cross.

I have studied the Nuremburg trials Saint Curie for I am a history major.

Really?

How can it be that you blindly accept an unsupported source?

Because of the Fall of Man, no human has the right to enter Heaven. However, God realized this, and sent his Son Jesus Christ (who, like the Father and the Spirit, was already existing) in order to absolve his Elect of the wages of sin so some of His creation may experience Heaven.

So - God can change, then?

Sorry, my friend - but you've proved you wouldn't know 'the prophecies of Messiah' if they nailed you to a cross.

:rolleyes:

As opposed to a person who turned his back on the God's Love and His Son?

I sincerely doubted the existence of God. Perhaps I should've said agnostic? Inconsequential, either way. I hope you don't see this as something to hold against me. That would be foolish.

I hold nothing against anyone. I was just pointing out the logical inconsistency of your statement.

You've got a few erroneous presuppositions about me, Assis.

This was not "my chance", I was a practicing devout Christian for years.

I've "met" the same information about Jesus that is just as sound as the information that formed your view.

Please don't assume that because somebody doesn't believe the things you believe, that it can only be because they haven't been exposed to it. And yes, you did assume that.

Sorry, I suppose I worded that wrongly. I should have said "one chance" not "your chance", since this implies your first (or best) opportunity. You have to excuse me, since I am not a native speaker so there is always the risk of saying something I didn't mean. I didn't assume you haven't been exposed to the things I've read but you shouldn't assume you have read the same things that I have. I have not read most of the bible. I have never read the Old Testament (unless indirectly, through references and stuff). I only read Jesus's sayings. Everything else in the bible for me is secondary. Also, most of my knowledge of Jesus comes from Gnostic Gospels, not the bible...

If anything, I believe there is a chance we may have interpreted Christianity differently. You see, you reacted as if I was a practising devout Christian who follows the Bible and who was "trying to show you the light" hehehe but I am far from a devout Christian and the closest I ever get to showing anyone the light is when I turn on the light switch at the front of my doorstep. I was exposed to Jesus and the bible all my life. I grew up in a Catholic country, in a Catholic family and had a bit of religious education. Still, I was a "devout atheist" all my life, until about a year ago when I turned agnostic. So, you see, why would I assume you were an atheist because you hadn't met the information, when I met it for years and I was still an atheist?

I can count with one hand the amount of times I've been to church, if I exclude weddings, funerals and baptisms. I did it because my home town Catholic priest is funny and very unconventional (he tells people Hell is Earth and Heaven is a better Earth!!! :eek: Heretic! Burn him! :D) I do not pray or even now how to. The 3 or 4 times I've been to church, I went because the priest is really funny and you do come out feeling good. I've always been sceptical about God. I still am. I believe in atoms and galaxies, not angels and demons. So, don't assume I believe in God either :D because I haven't really made up my mind about what God is, never mind believing in it. I am not religious. I am just a follower of Jesus, trying to instil his values in my life; kind of a self-indoctrinated Christian...

Oh Dear God. It has been written that he would be born of a Virgin.

Show me.

Which chapter, which verse?

Why should I answer your question? Oh yea...I don't have to answer. I know full well that the bible is not full of contradictions.

And yet, you KNOW I'm about to make YOU expose one - so you choose not to answer?

A pretty pathetic testament, no?

God.

You mean - a personal revelation... or 'scripturally'?

:rolleyes:

As opposed to a person who turned his back on the God's Love and His Son?

Meaning... what?

I was a Christian, my friend. I am numbered among the 'saved'... and yet, I no longer believe.

Just 'not believing' does not obviate my knowledge... especially not that which I knew AS a Christian.

Show me.

Which chapter, which verse?

Isaiah 7:14 "All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us')

And yet, you KNOW I'm about to make YOU expose one - so you choose not to answer?

A pretty pathetic testament, no?

I could answer your question however, the answer is really unimportant as to the Word of God.

Meaning... what?

I was a Christian, my friend. I am numbered among the 'saved'... and yet, I no longer believe.

Just 'not believing' does not obviate my knowledge... especially not that which I knew AS a Christian.

That is the crux of it. You no longer believe and because of that, you cannot see the Glorious Word of God in its true light.

I can say it honestly and not be wrong for the Bible does not have contradictions.

I have more pressing requirements on my time, right now... but when I return tomorrow, I shall detail some of those contradictions for you.

Let me leave you with a thought, though...

Second Samuel 6:23, Second Samuel 21:8.

Read the two verses, and explain them... please?

Wait, wait...You say God has shown himself, but the those who believe and haven't seen are blessed?

I have more pressing requirements on my time, right now... but when I return tomorrow, I shall detail some of those contradictions for you.

Let me leave you with a thought, though...

Second Samuel 6:23, Second Samuel 21:8.

Read the two verses, and explain them... please?

They are straight forward Michal remained childless and that Saul had children with Rizpah and Merab.

Wait, wait...You say God has shown himself, but the those who believe and haven't seen are blessed?

Those who have not seen his Son Jesus but yet believe in Him are blessed.

They are straight forward Michal remained childless and that Saul had children with Rizpah and Merab.

According to my Bible, there is a footnote by the name Merab in 2 Samuel 21:8:

Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac; Most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts Michal

In other words, Merab is Michal.

According to my Bible, there is a footnote by the name Merab in 2 Samuel 21:8:

Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac; Most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts Michal

In other words, Merab is Michal.

Most yes you are right about that however it goes on to say that she was married to Adriel. Now we can assume she remained childless and yet still had 5 sons through other means. Just because she was childless does not mean she did not have children.

Most yes you are right about that however it goes on to say that she was married to Adriel. Now we can assume she remained childless and yet still had 5 sons through other means. Just because she was childless does not mean she did not have children.

The first verse specifically says: 2 Samuel 6:23 "And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."

The second verse says: 2 Samuel 21:8 "...together with the five sons of Merab (Michal), whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite."

This seems to be pretty explicitly clear that she bore these five sons, while the earlier verse claims she had none.

The first verse specifically says: 2 Samuel 6:23 "And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."

The second verse says: 2 Samuel 21:8 "...together with the five sons of Merab (Michal), whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite."

This seems to be pretty explicitly clear that she bore these five sons, while the earlier verse claims she had none.

2nd Sam. 21:8 "But he gave them Saul's two sons Armoni and Mephibosheth, whose mother was Rizpah daughter of Aiah. He also gave them the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, the wife of Adriel son of Barzillai from Meholah."

I do not see the word bore there, do you?

2nd Sam. 21:8 "But he gave them Saul's two sons Armoni and Mephibosheth, whose mother was Rizpah daughter of Aiah. He also gave them the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab, the wife of Adriel son of Barzillai from Meholah."

I do not see the word bore there, do you?

I'm working from a New International Version Bible, so if we have different translations it's entirely possible the words won't match.

In my version: 2 Samuel 21:8 "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite."

So I see borne here. Unfortunately, unless one of us can claim direct translation from the original Hebrew, it'll be difficult to decide who's version is closer.

I'm working from a New International Version Bible, so if we have different translations it's entirely possible the words won't match.

In my version: 2 Samuel 21:8 "But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah's daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite."

So I see borne here. Unfortunately, unless one of us can claim direct translation from the original Hebrew, it'll be difficult to decide who's version is closer.

That would indeed be correct. It has been a nice little debate though. Thanks for keeping it civil :)

Jesus existed for the 3 main religions all believe in him. Some of the Jews and the Muslims consider him a prophet, Christians and some Jews considers him to be the Messiah.
That isn't evidence. Major religions accepting the existence of a person doesnt' prove anything. Provide accurate historical evidence from an unbiased source that can be critically examined pertaining to the existence of Jesus.

Its prideful to spread God's word?
what you consider to be god word whichmay or may not be gods word, BTW i think it is 'prideful' to claim that you, as a mere mortal feel confidant enough to know what God thinks and what God is going to do

By not believing in his Son, Jesus Christ.
So God gave me free will, free will making it possible for me not to believe in him and then punishes me for not believing in him
if god knows what we should and should not do then why allow us to do what we should not,yes blah blah free will, if he alows us to do what we want why punish us?
its like with a small child, they have never been told that running into the road is wrong, and when they do it they get punished-how is that fair?If you allow a child to do wrong then you can expect them to b a little miffed when you punish them for doing something they didnt know is wrong.And when a child does wrong because they have been allowed to who do you blame?the parents, so lets blame god for all our sins, for allowing us to do wrong

That would indeed be correct. It has been a nice little debate though. Thanks for keeping it civil :)

Well, that does it for this particular set of verses, but it is by no means the only example of contradiction in the Bible.

Take Matt. 1:16 and Luke 3:23, for example:

Matt. 1:16 "And Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23 "Now Jesus was himself about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,"

The contradiction rests on who exactly the father of Joseph was, especially considering the lineage is important in fulfilling the part of the prophecy that claimed the Messiah would be a descendant of David.

As I said, believe what you will.
as long as you believe in jesus, or you will go to hell.
If you really think people should believe what they will, then bloody well stop trying to convert us, fine have you religious beliefs, but dont think you beliefs apply to me because if there is a creator it is wrong for people to claim they know the mind or motives of this deity. There is no proof that there is or isnt a creator-let alone the christian versions of heaven and hell, and unless I have some kind of divine vision i will not change my mind.

And if a Muslim firmly believes this then why are Muslims killing Christians?
and if christians believe that 'thou shalt not kill' than why were there witch burnings, and why are christians in the army and killing muslims in iraq.

and if christians believe that 'thou shalt not kill' than why were there witch burnings, and why are christians in the army and killing muslims in iraq.

1) I cannot explain the witchburnings in the name of Jesus for I am willing to bet that God will frown on that.

and

2) ITS A FRIGGIN WAR!!!

im guessing that thou shalt not kill means you shouldnt kill people, therefore there should be no war, and you may say, but they attacked us firast- well then turn the other cheek and rise above their level

im guessing that thou shalt not kill means you shouldnt kill people, therefore there should be no war, and you may say, but they attacked us firast- well then turn the other cheek and rise above their level

We already had this discussion early on and have already shown the difference between committing murder and fighting in a war.

Why should I answer your question? Oh yea...I don't have to answer. I know full well that the bible is not full of contradictions.

What about the place where God give dimensions for a circular boat whose radius and circumference indicate pi is actually 3 according to the bible?...

1) I cannot explain the witchburnings in the name of Jesus for I am willing to bet that God will frown on that.


But the people then were perfectly convinced they were doing God's will, as you are now. What will happen when the current Church's prejudices become looked upon as old and discriminatory? And how come whatever God thinks seems to change with whatever the people who worship him want him to think?

there r some funny things about this forum...

mainly that the people who are all about logic don't follow it well...

because pretend there is no god...what do u win when we die...

you won't even be able to mock those who believe...so you win nothing...

but if there is a God...(which there is) what do u win...

pain and suffering...but it doesn't matter because u maintain that God isn't

good enough to recognize or worship in anyway, shape, or form...

so by not believing in God, you will win nothing after you die...

so why would you even choose to be agnostic/atheist in any situation...

doesn't logic suggest then that you would believe in God??

there r some funny things about this forum...

mainly that the people who are all about logic don't follow it well...

because pretend there is no god...what do u win when we die...

you won't even be able to mock those who believe...so you win nothing...

but if there is a God...(which there is) what do u win...

pain and suffering...but it doesn't matter because u maintain that God isn't

good enough to recognize or worship in anyway, shape, or form...

so by not believing in God, you will win nothing after you die...

so why would you even choose to be agnostic/atheist in any situation...

doesn't logic suggest then that you would believe in God??

No it merely means we would rather believe what is real rather than what would be "nice". This is similar to the use of soma in Brave New World. Soma makes everything happier for the user, yet it does so by disillusioning the user.

But the people then were perfectly convinced they were doing God's will, as you are now. What will happen when the current Church's prejudices become looked upon as old and discriminatory? And how come whatever God thinks seems to change with whatever the people who worship him want him to think?

Thing is, I do not support witch burnings nor burning people at the stake for heresy.

Thing is, I do not support witch burnings nor burning people at the stake for heresy.

But do you or do you not support Gay Marriage, and will this decision be looked upon as discrimination by the ever changing God of the future?

I'm not asking for faith, I'm asking you to address the issues:
The issue as per the thread topic is:

"Do you have faith in God?"

My reply was fairly straightforward:

"I believe that God is a loving and caring God, and perhaps one day He will share His truths with me and others. Until then, I will give Him the benefit of the doubt and put my faith in Him. I certainly cannot put my faith in you."

You are the one that is trying to add your own "issues" into this thread.

Question I: Is the Bible true, and if so, to what extent? Literally, figuratively, inerrantly, partially? Once you stop dodging that, we can "get somewhere".
Does anyone truly know the answer to your question? The problem you have is obvious. Even if the Bible is 100% totally false, it still would not prove that there is no God.

P.S. Do you seriously not understand how "proof by contradiction" works? You don't see how examing the opposition's evidence and showing the ramifications of assuming it to be true (particular the negative or paradoxical ramifications) would show the opposition's position to be flawed?
For you to argue by means of "proof by contradiction" then it logically follows that you would have to know certain truths? That might work in a mathematical exercize, but I do not see how it could work in regards to whether God exists or not.

That isn't evidence. Major religions accepting the existence of a person doesnt' prove anything. Provide accurate historical evidence from an unbiased source that can be critically examined pertaining to the existence of Jesus.
You people are mixing so many questions... The existence of God and Jesus are two separate issues. You can believe Jesus existed without believing in God (and vice-versa). God's existence does not depend on the bible's consistency, because God did not write the bible, men did... Discussing inconsistencies in the bible is lunacy... This is a book that has been written, rewritten, edited, translated, retranslated, translated again and back to the original language. Plus, many of the things written in the Bible are not to be taken literally. Names should be looked upon with extra care, since there were plenty of common names and the same name mentioned twice may be talking about different people.

The closest there is to "unbiased evidence" to support the existence of Jesus (not as a deity but as a man) are scrolls which were deemed heretic by the Catholic Church and which also report dialogues between the apostles and Jesus. Among these are The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary and The Gospel of Judas. There are many more scrolls, which are not recognised by the Church.

These Gospels are quite good examples of written evidence which is untainted by the Church. They survived nearly 1800 years of religious censorship, thanks to scribes who decided to bury them instead of burning them, as they had been ordered to do in the 2nd century, when a Bishop decided to define Christian orthodoxy (and burn at the stake every Christian who didn't conform to "the new rules"). In the Gospel of Judas, the last one to appear, Jesus refers to Judas as he who "will become the thirteenth". So this old manuscript backs the theory that Jesus had 13 apostles and that Mary was one of them...

While most people say that there is no historical evidence on the existence of Jesus, the truth is that there is a tremendous amount of written accounts about a men that is supposed to have lived an extremely short life. This was a poor man, a carpenter, not a king or great warrior. We are talking of a man that died in his early 30s and whose name didn't travel that far, while he lived. He was dead before Rome realised the threat he posed.

I find it really hard to believe that Jesus did not exist. Whether he was a man or a son of God, is another big question for which I have no answer (I really do not need it). Doubting that the man existed seems unreasonable. It seems absolutely nuts that so many manuscripts could have been written about a fictitious man but, when you read them all, you don't feel you're reading about a different person. How can so many different authors capture the same character, the same psychology, the same wiseness? It's crazy...

Also, there is another factor which I find PERSONALLY very conclusive, though it wouldn't hold in a court of law. Can you really believe that a bunch of illiterate 12-13 people could create such an amazing conspiracy theory and convince the population to follow them, solely on their accounts, at a time when that came with a risk of a violent death by Roman persecution? How could such a revolution happen without a leader? Peter couldn't be that leader, because he was very much unlike Jesus. He had a temper, he was a chauvinist and even violent. Certainly the Church inherited his worse qualities in mediaeval times... If Peter had been the leader of this tremendous conspiracy, the sayings of Jesus would have been very different. Jesus would have treated women like shit. Worse, the bible wouldn't provide half of the ammo that it does and which you can use against the church. The bible may in fact be inconsistent, because it is not the word of God but the words of many, many men. You are wasting your time discussing them.

But do you or do you not support Gay Marriage, and will this decision be looked upon as discrimination by the ever changing God of the future?

I do not support Gay Marriage for marriage is between one man and one woman and the answer to your 2nd question is no.

I do not support Gay Marriage for marriage is between one man and one woman and the answer to your 2nd question is no.

And have you seen this future? God would have condemned Galileo according to the Church until 1990, when the so called position of God changed. The truth is that no one can truly say "I know what God thinks about this" and if they do they presume that they have Godlike powers, which is very unchristian.

For you to argue by means of "proof by contradiction" then it logically follows that you would have to know certain truths? That might work in a mathematical exercize, but I do not see how it could work in regards to whether God exists or not.

doesn't logic suggest then that you would believe in God??

BOth of you were arguing that God exists in a form which you claim to be knowledgable about, however one of you says logic cannot be used (in the form of a proof which can be applied to things other than Math), and the other says it can...

And have you seen this future? God would have condemned Galileo according to the Church until 1990, when the so called position of God changed. The truth is that no one can truly say "I know what God thinks about this" and if they do they presume that they have Godlike powers, which is very unchristian.
You are not talking about God, you are talking about the Catholic Church.

And have you seen this future? God would have condemned Galileo according to the Church until 1990, when the so called position of God changed. The truth is that no one can truly say "I know what God thinks about this" and if they do they presume that they have Godlike powers, which is very unchristian.

And who decided that Stics? Who decides that God's position has changed?

I do not support Gay Marriage for marriage is between one man and one woman and the answer to your 2nd question is no.
Could you support gay marriage, as long as it is not Holy matrimony?

You are not talking about God, you are talking about the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church, which foolishly claims to have knowledge of God's intent. All I am trying to say is that saying that God says something like marriage is between a man and a woman is foolish because then you are essentially saying you know what God is thinking and if God exists he is such a superior being that would be impossible.

Could you support gay marriage, as long as it is not Holy matrimony?

I already have stated that I will support civil unions but not marriage.