NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course there is a god why should there not be if there is not a god then the world would be very depressing.

When he proposed that this was true, he was supporting Bob's position in order to make his point. Yes.


Not really. He said "If". He didn't say "your claim is true". He said "If". Not supporting. Assuming.

Of course there is a god why should there not be if there is not a god then the world would be very depressing.


Is that supposed to imply that the world is not currently very depressing?

What does the atheist accomplish by considering the Bible to be true?

He/She accomlishes an examination of what those implications would be. In this case, the atheist then demonstrates how a particular religious person runs away from those implications.


And what have been the results of this "time-honored means of analysis" in regards to the existence of God?

Depends on the God. This analysis results in showing that if god were as described in the bible, god would be guilty of terrible things.

As to the existence of any God, I've told you, I'm not making any implication as to whether there is or isn't one. I think there might be, might be not, but if the God that is described in the Bible were to exist, he would be guilty of vile things.


As I stated earlier, your "proof by contradiction" will not disprove the existence of God.

And as has been explained to you repeatedly, we're not seeking to disprove the existence of God. The proof by contradiction only shows that if the Bible is an accurate account of God, God has done horrible things.
I ask you yet again, CanuckHeaven, do you believe the Bible to be true, without falsehood?


You have made 349 posts in this thread. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

I only hope to elicit your responses, which I have succeeded in doing.

Every time you dodge the question of whether or not you think the bible is true and without falsehood, everytime you demonstrate your level of understanding of logic, it helps my position.

CanuckHeaven, there are people in this world that think its okay to do terrible things, as long as "god" wills it. They do terrible things for "god" without understanding why, just that "god has his reasons".

Exposing that mindset is important. And I've accomplished it.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean for it to have the red font, I'll try to remove it.

And not only a god but a plethora of gods and goddesses, not to mention any between and beyond. There are literally billions and billions of gods. I think every single "living" being is a god in it's own as long as it goes with the nature instead of against it, like humans tend to do.

:headbang:

When he proposed that this was true, he was supporting Bob's position in order to make his point. Yes.

You don't understand that Bob's position and Albert's points were at odds? That Albert successfully supported a position contrary to Bob's?

You obviously haven't listened to anything SC has said. Perhaps you should go back several pages and brush up on your knowledge of debate tactics. Proof by contradiction is an extremely useful tool. There's even a worked example of a proof by contradiction so that you can see the affect assuming the converse of your argument has.
It didn't work in regards to the topic at hand. As far as "listening" is concerned, I have read all that he has posted, in regards to our conversations.

Few people seem to be educated on the tactic. Makeing sure everyone knows how a proof by contradiction works must be done before you can actually use it on someone. But a lot of people on this thread seem only to want to state their uneducated opinion and not to learn.
See above.

No. But it will force the christians to modify their position. This counts as a loss on their side.
You assume far too much, and I would say have also mis-interpreted the results?

It's an intellectual excercise. Some people find challenges fun.
Yeah, I saw earlier how much fun you were having, when you were getting angered by Corny to the point that you wanted to kill him. Fantastic "intellectual exercize" there and certainly a glorious example of great "debate tactics".

It didn't work in regards to the topic at hand. As far as "listening" is concerned, I have read all that he has posted, in regards to our conversations.

See above.

You assume far too much, and I would say have also mis-interpreted the results?

Yeah, I saw earlier how much fun you were having, when you were getting angered by Corny to the point that you wanted to kill him. Fantastic "intellectual exercize" there and certainly a glorious example of great "debate tactics".

CanuckHeaven, again, let's take this to a new thread. You've said there are things you want to discuss, and as long as you're willing to answer my questions as well, we can do it in an organized, reasonable way.

You would need to answer direct questions about your beliefs, but a person of faith should have no problem with that. I would do the same. We wouldn't have to shift through ten pages to make our responses to eachother.

Are you willing to answer questions about your beliefs? Directly and fully?

It didn't work in regards to the topic at hand. As far as "listening" is concerned, I have read all that he has posted, in regards to our conversations.


See above.


I couldn't be arsed reading the past few pages. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.


You assume far too much, and I would say have also mis-interpreted the results?


How so?



Yeah, I saw earlier how much fun you were having, when you were getting angered by Corny to the point that you wanted to kill him. Fantastic "intellectual exercize" there and certainly a glorious example of great "debate tactics".

It started out as an excercise. But when a person says: "Big Bang is false. Have a nice day." and you ask them 3 times for a valid scientific reason as to why it is false, I get slightly annoyed.

there is a god, but he doesnt really care if i follow him enough to stop me going to hell.

so follow god, or he'll burn u in hell. he wont try to save u, cause hes mean like that, and only put any effort in 2000 years ago in an event which has no non-biased converage anymore a
or good books for me to read about it

Well, I've gotta hit the sack.

CanuckHeaven, if you make a new thread for us, please TG me with the name of it.

Before I say any of this, I would like to say that I haven't read all of this thread.

From little I have read, people that don't believe in God seem pretty set in their beliefs. Other people blieve in God, but think that He is mean, or spiteful. Unfortunatly, from what I have read, it seems that the believers just believe, and aren't able to answer most questions. This is a problem that is faced often.

First, to the belief that there is no God... I'm sorry, but I really can't scientificly prove that there is a God, other then the fact that before I believed, there was an empty spot, that was filled after I found Him. Not a very good argument, but proof enough for me.

Many people see God as angry or spiteful. He isn't. He is, however, often misrepresented. People use God as a reason to kill others, and He wouldn't want this. He wants us to spread the word about Him, and try to convince others of the truth. He doesn't want us to force the truth on others. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and all other times that this has happened, people have wanted to kill others, and needed an excuse. I, personally, as a Christian, am sorry that people have misrepresneted my God this way. Others use Biblical refrences to show how mean he is. Mostly, when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorah (Sorry for the misspelling). He did this because he told these cities that they were in the wrong, and they didn't listen. He destroyed them because he was disobeyed. He isn't mean, but He is strict.

If anyone has any questions, please send me a telegram, or email me at musicavir@aol.com.

truth be told, some will listen ...
Technically, YOU just did, Corny! :eek:
And how many other new posters/readers coming through after posting that have too.

You would need to answer direct questions about your beliefs, but a person of faith should have no problem with that. I would do the same. We wouldn't have to shift through ten pages to make our responses to eachother.

Are you willing to answer questions about your beliefs? Directly and fully?
I would be...

then, with ABSOLUTLY no offence intended toward you, why is no-one allowed to call people who follow "normal" religions nuts?
Ya know what, i like yer moxie there, KaminoBob.
If you don't mind me doing so, i extend welcome to NS Forums. *bows*

Before I say any of this, I would like to say that I haven't read all of this thread.

From little I have read...

[snip]

Many people see God as angry or spiteful. He isn't. He is, however, often misrepresented. People use God as a reason to kill others, and He wouldn't want this. He wants us to spread the word about Him, and try to convince others of the truth. He doesn't want us to force the truth on others. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and all other times that this has happened, people have wanted to kill others, and needed an excuse. I, personally, as a Christian, am sorry that people have misrepresneted my God this way. Others use Biblical refrences to show how mean he is. Mostly, when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorah (Sorry for the misspelling). He did this because he told these cities that they were in the wrong, and they didn't listen. He destroyed them because he was disobeyed. He isn't mean, but He is strict.

If anyone has any questions, please send me a telegram, or email me at musicavir@aol.com.

i will bet you my kidney by "told them" u mean he very quietly whispered it to one peasant woman in her sleep. which she didnt hear, and so they were blissfully unawear of their impending doom

i have found as much proof that your god exists as that my giant-teal-squid-deity exists.

there is existence, and so my god exists, because He/She/It created existence.
I've gotta know ... when that squid get together with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Invisible Unicorn, which one's "on top"?
:eek:

Of course there is a god why should there not be if there is not a god then the world would be very depressing.

if god exists to the extent that many claim, then free will is stunted.

so then, exactly what do you find depressing about freedom?

I was visited late last spring by two powerful Archetypes. One was a very, very old and tired man sitting by a small fire. The other was the fire itself, who spoke as well as the man, in fact nearly shouting him down at times. The man told me that he was known to me by name but insisted on referring to himself as 'the giver of the gift', while the fire described itself to me as 'the gift, who was not his to give'. I had quite the revelatory experience, one which it's taken the better part of a year to fully digest.

However, these Archetypes weren't God; they were, to my way of thinking, 'Gods' - but I do believe in God, my God, the Supreme Deity with whom I have a deeply personal relationship. And I'll tell you - my God doesn't care about the stuff that you, me, and the other six billion hairless apes on this rock care about; It's not about books, or priests, or tall little buildings with belltowers on them - what it's really about is nearly everything else there is in the cosmos other than books, or priests, or tall little buildings with belltowers on them.

Want to get closer to God? There's more of God to be found in - well, name it - than you'll ever find in some stale old book sitting on a dusty pew.
*thinks of a GREAT couple o' episodes of Millenium*

i will bet you my kidney by "told them" u mean he very quietly whispered it to one peasant woman in her sleep. which she didnt hear, and so they were blissfully unawear of their impending doom

Nope. He told them all. He even gave them a last chance before He sent the fire and such. They just didn't listen. Like most people don't listen to Him today.

in the brief moments my childhood indoctrination is forgotten and i stop believing i feel happy, loved and free. then i slip back to believing in god and i feel depressed, unloved, unfree and guilty

Because we are humans and humans love to bicker :p
Sure do. First comes that ... then the swingin' on the tire swings. Then the grunting. Then the grooming. Then the long nights in the cave. Then the cohabitation. Pretty soon some photographer comes along with a camera, or a rival tribe perhaps, and the dung-flinging begins. Then Jane Goodall comes 'round and ... hey, where was i?

in the brief moments my childhood indoctrination is forgotten and i stop believing i feel happy, loved and free. then i slip back to believing in god and i feel depressed, unloved, unfree and guilty

I must ask, when you were a child, what were you? Denomination, I mean.

did you ever watch the movie Dogma?
OOOH! A HOT one.

*Corny was Morrisette's "stand"-in for the hand-stand scene! WooT!*

Nope. He told them all. He even gave them a last chance before He sent the fire and such. They just didn't listen. Like most people don't listen to Him today.

i take it you are basing this quote (obviously) on the bible. Which by the way, didnt come from god, came from a group of "lets rule the poor through guilt texts" religious types much-less-than 2000 years ago.

i dont want to attack christianity, in civalised times it has been one of the most influencial powers of good on earth. i also respect people who can have faith and have good lives. but sadly i dont get it, and probably never will.

In answer to your question, for the last five years ive been going to a modern evangelical outreach church, all clappy (slightly shakey) hands and buzz. good fun, loosely anglican feel, slightly protestant, most non-denomitory.

I've gotta know ... when that squid get together with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Invisible Unicorn, which one's "on top"?
:eek:

His Noodly Appendages are omnipresent. They are neither on top nor on bottom.

Yes.

behold he is crowned with many crowns. He is Yeshua Hamashea. The Holy One of Israel.

And he is watching everything you do.

His Noodly Appendages are omnipresent. They are neither on top nor on bottom.

...Shouldn't they be both on top and on bottom? if they're everywhere, I mean...

i take it you are basing this quote (obviously) on the bible. Which by the way, didnt come from god, came from a group of "lets rule the poor through guilt texts" religious types much-less-than 2000 years ago.

i dont want to attack christianity, in civalised times it has been one of the most influencial powers of good on earth. i also respect people who can have faith and have good lives. but sadly i dont get it, and probably never will

Why do you believe that the Bible wasn't inspired by God?

Just this One Guy's Philosophy.
I'm seeing just One Other Guy's Philosophy here ... well, two.

*looks accusingly towards Ritlina and friends*

His Noodly Appendages are omnipresent. They are neither on top nor on bottom.
I had my suspicions about that. So, that would make Zoltar and the Invisible Pink Unicorn the "takers", wouldn't it?
I mean ... well, Zoltar has appendages too, just not quite as many, i supsect ... and Pinkie has the HORN, and whatever else, but not as many as Zoltar OR FSM.

*thinks of cartoon in Revelation X that Dobbsworld knows*

catch the updated bit on my last post.

ultimately the people who wrote it were relying on FAITH, not FACT. these two words are very different, as im sure no two christians in the world have identical faiths, but practically every scientist will understand newtons first law the same way. so even if inspired by god, its a coallition of opinions. making it quite dodgy. u also have the problem that its very old, and has been changed and edited again and again. so unless u took classics and speak dead languages u have another problem

Yes.

behold he is crowned with many crowns. He is Yeshua Hamashea. The Holy One of Israel.

And he is watching everything you do.
WHERE IS his other hand? :eek:

I would be...

As I recall, Anglachel and Anguirel, you don't take the bible to be literally true, is that correct? (I don't want to confuse you with another poster).

If that's the case, I have no reason to think you would try to justify or support horrible crimes in the name of some god or other.

Thus, I don't see your mentality as dangerous, so I wish you well in your spiritual pursuits, but your beliefs wouldn't necessitate any cause for concern.

Thanks, anyway.

come to think of it... this thread is pointless, because u cant disprove god. u can argue that he is very, very invisible, seems to be not present ect. but then christians, muslims and jews will say no! no the evidence is everywhere, look at all the people with faith, look at the complexity of the universe, it cannot all be by chance. the fact of it is, if every religious person packed up and moved to mars, christianity ect would NEVER return, ever. because "god" isnt advertising. people are. so the big guy has either popped his clogs or has never been. in my opinion

i take it you are basing this quote (obviously) on the bible. Which by the way, didnt come from god, came from a group of "lets rule the poor through guilt texts" religious types much-less-than 2000 years ago.

i dont want to attack christianity, in civalised times it has been one of the most influencial powers of good on earth. i also respect people who can have faith and have good lives. but sadly i dont get it, and probably never will

The Sodom and Gomorrah part of the Bible comes from Genesis, which was written well over 2000 years ago.

Yes, the Bible was written by humans who are, being human, entirely fallible, but I and most other Christians believe that the writers of the Bible were, for the most part, divinely inspired.

Yours is a more common sentiment than you might believe, even among Christians.
_________________

EDIT: It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God with 100% absolute objective certainty. If it could be done, there would be no religion, and no need for faith.

I actually have studied the classics, and am taking greek next semester. I must say, things are different, but only because the English language isn't as descriptive as the ancient languages. It does make the translation a little hard, but in the end, the current translations do have the same meaning, if not the same poetic feeling as the origional texts. The biggest problem that there is with the Bible is the fact that when it was cannonized, many books were left out, and have been lost. We don't get the full picture. It sounds like you have a good church, but like you may have been having the same doubts that every Christian I know have had at one point in time.

I've gotta know ... when that squid get together with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Invisible Unicorn, which one's "on top"?
:eek:

FSM: Less us merge in a pastapassionate urge of gawd rubbing...

PIU: Why not...I'm horny...get it, I'm horny? You know, I'm a unicorn, so I'm...

FSM: Yeah, yeah I got it, that's great, honey...now come on, unwrap the magnum and let's go...

PIU: oh, yes, oh,oh, yeah, oh...uh...um, what's that?

FSM: That's a meatball.

PIU:....well, of course it is....

sorry of course, old testiment is very ancient indeed, i was reffering to the newer more shiney edition.

FSM: Less us merge in a pastapassionate urge of gawd rubbing...

PIU: Why not...I'm horny...get it, I'm horny? You know, I'm a unicorn, so I'm...

FSM: Yeah, yeah I got it, that's great, honey...now come on, unwrap the magnum and let's go...

PIU: oh, yes, oh,oh, yeah, oh...uh...um, what's that?

FSM: That's a meatball.

PIU:....well, of course it is....I knew you wouldn't let me down .... :D

Most of the New Testament was written in the first two or three centuries AD. The letters of the Apostles, of course, were written in the first century, and the four canonical Gospels were written mostly in the second century.

anyway thank you very much to the believers whove been discussing this with me in this thread. if u want to try and convince me some more "the vallies of death" is your drop by.

let i comfort u in this: if god is real, he will try and save me (again) when im ready. and hopefully i wil be listening. if he isnt, then it makes no difference whatsoever.

Before I say any of this, I would like to say that I haven't read all of this thread.Me neither.

From little I have read, people that don't believe in God seem pretty set in their beliefs.The rational position on anything & everything supernatural, is agnostic disbelief. In the case of Christianity, that means the rational stance is agnostic atheism.Other people blieve in God, but think that He is mean, or spiteful. Again, the rational belief, in the case of literalist Christianity (and not much else), is that the deity is a psychotic massmurderer. That is, if the proposed deity was human, it would either have been locked away in a mental institution, or sentenced to death by a court of law.Unfortunatly, from what I have read, it seems that the believers just believe, and aren't able to answer most questions. This is a problem that is faced often. Yups.First, to the belief that there is no God... I'm sorry, but I really can't scientificly prove that there is a God, other then the fact that before I believed, there was an empty spot, that was filled after I found Him. Not a very good argument, but proof enough for me.I think you'll find that even the more rabid atheists around here, don't have a problem with religious people, but rather with certain manners of the religious. The next bit illustrates it nicely:Many people see God as angry or spiteful. He isn't. He is, however, often misrepresented. People use God as a reason to kill others, and He wouldn't want this. He wants us to spread the word about Him, and try to convince others of the truth. He doesn't want us to force the truth on others. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and all other times that this has happened, people have wanted to kill others, and needed an excuse. I, personally, as a Christian, am sorry that people have misrepresneted my God this way. Others use Biblical refrences to show how mean he is. Mostly, when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorah (Sorry for the misspelling). He did this because he told these cities that they were in the wrong, and they didn't listen. He destroyed them because he was disobeyed. He isn't mean, but He is strict.And this is where you & I collide. Your deity isn't "angry or spiteful", and it is justifiable to annihilate whole cities?

I don't think so. Know why I have friends & loved ones? It's simple really. I try to help people in general, and I try to interact & be nice to the people that interests me. In return, people tend to do the same.
If I killed people for disobeying me, I'd probably be killed in turn. If I was immortal, nobody would like me, or at least, they'd only risk being around me in order to obtain a reward.

The biblical deity is very much like the hypothetical, immortal me above - only on a massive scale. You want people to not just buy into your belief in this highly unlikely entity, you want to convince people that this murderous entity is a "good guy".

That attitude is highly offensive. To use a real world analogy, I'm certain most people on this planet, would consider it offensive in the extreme, if someone hailed Osama bin Laden as a "good guy" and tried to convince others to follow the teachings of him. I would.

\ Do your professors ever try to help you develop your specious reasoning into something a bit more sound?
Yes. They facilitate that by sending him here.
*nods*

I believe there is a god but humans have no concept of him or her. The information has been twisted to suit the whims of every dictator and king since the legend began (speaking of christianity that is).

since its a 50/50 split down the middle i will spare everyone my take on it any further since the ones who say yes will swear up and down that im wrong and should die for being a heretic, and the ones who say no will say im full of shit anyway lol.

Peace

Yes. They facilitate that by sending him here.
*nods*

Heh, I don't know, Straughn, honestly. Go back through even just the last twenty pages, and you'll find places were a lot of people, not just me, have tried to explain basic elements of reasoning, and even when you give repeated, simple, worked examples, some just don't want to get it.

Heh, I don't know, Straughn, honestly. Go back through even just the last twenty pages, and you'll find places were a lot of people, not just me, have tried to explain basic elements of reasoning, and even when you give repeated, simple, worked examples, some just don't want to get it.Where I'm from, it's called "Bloodyminded ignorance" ;)

...Where did we get thirteen hundred people?

Because of the Fall of Man, no human has the right to enter Heaven. However, God realized this ...
WTF?
God realized this ...
Okay, one more time ...
God realized this ...
You are portraying, pretty clearly, that God hadn't been paying attention to the situation (or perhaps couldn't keep up), and by "realizing" the situation THAT HE CREATED was going to result in this situation (oh what a beautiful "divine plan" that is :rolleyes: ) and basically is behind the agenda of man, instead of the one who was supposed to have created it.

It's fairly clear that god is qualified as a post-circumstance imaginative figure, given this post.
Just pointing out how that appears.

Heh, I don't know, Straughn, honestly. Go back through even just the last twenty pages, and you'll find places were a lot of people, not just me, have tried to explain basic elements of reasoning, and even when you give repeated, simple, worked examples, some just don't want to get it.
Well, some people only get paid so much an hour to teach. The rest of us, as follows ...

Man: Well...
Mr. Vibrating: Well WHAT?
Man: That wasn't really five minutes just now.
Mr. Vibrating: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
Man: Well I just paid!
Mr. Vibrating: No you didn't!
Man: I DID!!!
Mr. Vibrating: No you didn't!
Man: Look, I don't want to argue about that!
Mr. Vibrating: Well, you didn't pay!
Man: Ah HAH!! If I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? I've got you.
Mr. Vibrating: No you haven't!
Man: Yes I have! If you're arguing, I must have paid.
Mr. Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

:D

...Where did we get thirteen hundred people?
Returned abductees.

...don't scoff, think about it. *nods emphatically*

Where I'm from, it's called "Bloodyminded ignorance" ;)

But that's the thing. In most cases, a lack of knowledge can be corrected by presenting knowledge. But we've repeatedly made cogent, reasonable demonstrations of at least the method, and even knowledge of various elements of logic doesn't penetrate.

I understand there's more to life than logic, but do they seriously not teach basic formal logic or critical reasoning anymore?

(I'm not saying everybody who disagrees with me is lacking knowledge or logic, I'm referring to very specific examples of long acknowledged methods and technique of logic being ignored).

oh I just want to add I am not christian, I am pagan, mostly wiccanish.

if this has gotten lost in short, Yes i do believe in god but he or she has been misrepresented by "evil" human who only seek to twist the devine to suit their purposes.

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

In conclusion, stfu. Hope that helps ;)
Yikes!
This guy's brandishing dangerous logic!!!

:D

But that's the thing. In most cases, a lack of knowledge can be corrected by presenting knowledge. But we've repeatedly made cogent, reasonable demonstrations of at least the method, and even knowledge of various elements of logic doesn't penetrate. I think the problem here, is that this argument is about something which people simply won't think about.

Yes it's wholly absurd that people will try to argue against, or refuse basic logical reasoning. Wikipedia or a random basic educational facility could set them straight. And it is my destinct impression that the majority of the bloodyminded ones, embrace these tools under most other circumstances.

But we're talking about religion. With the amount of cognitive dissonance - double-think - required to believe in an anthropomorphic deity, it really isn't terribly surprising that people simply refuse to apply critical thought to the subject.I understand there's more to life than logic, but do they seriously not teach basic formal logic or critical reasoning anymore? Why do I want to say "Sorry Saint Curie, you're not not in Kansas anymore"?

Why do I want to say "Sorry Saint Curie, you're not not in Kansas anymore"?
Perhaps because you could be an evil bastard? :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/676.gif

*snip*

Why do I want to say "Sorry Saint Curie, you're not not in Kansas anymore"?

Sim, now you've depressed me...terribly...how could you? After that time I pulled you out of the path of that train? Or was that a hallucination...

Prove it.
Hey! That sounds familiar ...

ya know, when i say it, though ....

it's like ...
PROOOOOOOOOOOOOVE it.

Welcome to NS!

"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.
Oh right, that cinches it, snap.

Case closed. You got 'im there. Everything else is wasting time.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

Provide evidence of the existence of Jesus.
Oh c'mon, he's alive and well in the hearts and souls of thousands of hopeful, faithful people!
And in the glimmering eyes and smiles of every boy and girl, and even Corneliu!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1304.gif

if life was perfect and without suffering, what would be the point in heaven, shurely life is just a test?

if life was perfect and without suffering, what would be the point in heaven, shurely life is just a test?

A test is a way to gain information you don't have, to learn about something. Surely, any particular god or other would already know the outcome of any and all tests, making tests unnecessary.

Unless its a god who shotgunned so many redbull and vodkas in his teenage years that he lost his ability to see the future...

Sorry, my friend - but you've proved you wouldn't know 'the prophecies of Messiah' if they nailed you to a cross.
Luv ya Grave!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/586.gif

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.
Ka-POW!!! :sniper:

Sim, now you've depressed me...terribly...how could you? After that time I pulled you out of the path of that train? Or was that a hallucination...I'm so sorry. dear. Will I make it up to you, if I step in front of a hallocinogenic train? ..or will it just make me fly real high...

if life was perfect and without suffering, what would be the point in heaven, shurely life is just a test?What's the point of heaven, if life isn't perfect bliss?

Can happiness exist without sadness? Can something truely be gained, if nothing is lost? Is heaven hell? Is this simply mindbogglingly useless?

24hr CVS pharmacy']Holy shit. I last posted in this thread like a month ago. on page 50 something. but to see this thread at over 223 pages is ridiculous. I'm not trying to be a bitch and say who's right or wrong or whatever, but the final standing is that people will believe what they believe to be true. I know people who don't believe in a "God" I know people who are true believers of "God" but no matter how much a topic is argued, people will always have an opinion. What I will say may or may not have any impact on people. I just wanted to say that this is getting a little out of hand over personal opinions.

Kisses.
What were you expecting? Terse, astute, succint, accurate answers?
:confused:
The play's the thing.

As has been pointed out for 220+ pages of bickering here, and as one person stated outright in this past page, no consensus or agreement will be reached on the existence or nature of a higher power.
...quitter.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif

I'll promise you thought that I will ignore it for it has no bearing on this thread and has something to do with earthly wars.
Whereas the battle for one's soul, as this clearly seems to be about, is waged fervently every day, right here on this particular earth, with choices made here and consequences dealt with here.
*shakes head*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/981.gif

For some unknown reason, people want to try and pick a fight with me. I THINK we've covered that. :D
So far, Satan is no 0-3 in that regard.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/509.gif

The more you pity us, the more contemptuous we feel towards God.
Corneliu would appear to be the "Bob" of the contempt plane.
:D

"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.

"And so the good overlord Zoltar, teal-hued squid-based lord of all existence, did create-eth the world, and all the crazy humans upon it, at approxamately 7:30 PST, may 28, 2006"

there, irrefutable proof that all that is was created by a 40-foot long teal squid plushie named overlord zoltar.

actually, i think i've found the greatest proof that if God exists, He/She/It doesn't care about us in the slightest.

i haven't been vaporized by a bolt of holy fire yet.

And by the way, "false" is not really a correct way to describe it. Parts, such as the Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit, never have happened in a factual or historical sense, but that story, for example, exemplifies the relationship between God and Man. It is symbolic, not historical-- indeed it has much more value as a metaphor than as a simple fact.

:eek:
Are you saying that the same source of "original sin" is "just symbolic", -therefore rendering the idea of us all being sinners who have to redeem ourselves- as being "symbolic"?

This is a pretty important statement for the guilt/fear/hellfire mongerers to consider. They don't have much leverage if that issue is just "symbolic", now, do they? :eek:

Do I believe in god?

I guess I am on two minds on this matter. I would like to believe there is a God, because it makes the world a more interesting place, supernaturally anyhow. That there might be something after the end. It would help in the line of work.

But supposing for one moment there is a God, I don’t think God is very much interested in matters concerning humans. The world is a very cruel and hash place. People often receive things they don’t deserve. Be it the kids who lose their parents to a car accident one afternoon. And had to endure sitting in the backseat of their smashed up car with their dead parents as the firemen cut them out. Or the psychotic bean counter of a manager that slowly tears up a good medical department to lower cost and achieve arbitrary government targets. He is rewarded for his ‘good’ work, only that where it matters most, the patients, the place has been guttered. And the damn man doesn’t care.

So if there is a God, God has other matters to attend too. Humans are not on the agenda list, much like the fate of the ants in your back garden is too your day to day life.

So I would like to believe there is a God. But if there really is one, God isn’t interested. And if there is a God watching over us, God is not the kind of person you would like to be friends with

Is there a God?

No. I don’t find evidence of one. There are no miracles, despite so many people praying for one, despite so many people deserving one.

Cosmological argument. teleological argument. Both use common sense to prove that there is a God. I am a Christian and as such I believe in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but these arguments answer the question, Yes, there is a God. I am not going to argue about whether he is omnibenevolent or whatever, I am just here arguing that he does exist, and that my belief has him as an omnibenevolent God as he created us. he allowed us to exist so we can be here discussing this issue. An all evil God would not have given us free will, but force us to worship them and look, we have free will.

actually, i think i've found the greatest proof that if God exists, He/She/It doesn't care about us in the slightest.

i haven't been vaporized by a bolt of holy fire yet.Maybe there's greenhouse trouble in Supernaturaland & God's saving power?

Rigth, sorry, I should clarify.

So, if Joe believes Book A to be only partially true, it can be inferred that he thus believes part to be false. As to the books actual veracity, it is not addressed by the statement.
Agreed. No problem.

Maybe there's greenhouse trouble in Supernaturaland & God's saving power?
Nah, god saves up the wrath for impotence issues of the mortals later on .... ;)

Cosmological argument. teleological argument. Both use common sense to prove that there is a God. I am a Christian and as such I believe in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, but these arguments answer the question, Yes, there is a God. I am not going to argue about whether he is omnibenevolent or whatever, I am just here arguing that he does exist, and that my belief has him as an omnibenevolent God as he created us. he allowed us to exist so we can be here discussing this issue. An all evil God would not have given us free will, but force us to worship them and look, we have free will.Which is worse?

The being without free will, or the being with, that lacks freedom of choice?

In my opinion, the latter is the more cruel existence. People born blind rarely resent the condition. People who're robbed of their sight often do.

See what you've done is taken a word "truth" and you've given it your own meaning. You can't do that. There is a universally agreed upon meaning for truth which can't be changed. The word you are after is 'faith'. You feel that what is in the bible is what the rest of us consider 'truth' but you can't prove it yet. That is faith. Not truth.
That is PRECISELY what i was typing about earlier with Corneliu and his term "Truth".
I would say a disturbing majority of religious idiots use that. I'm not saying Corny personally is an idiot, but everyone OTHER THAN HIM that does that i can feel pretty secure saying that about.

Again with the reliance on logic. Reminds me of Evangelical Christians I've met that when asked to give a reason as to why they think the Bible is the only source of truth, they just ignore the essential question and continue to insist that truth is only found in the Bible.

Paradigmatic assumptions have that affect, it seems.You have a hand for wishes and a hand for sh*t .... which one do you feel will fill faster? Hmmm?
Apply the same principle after giving it some thought.

I guess I am on two minds on this matter. I would like to believe there is a God, because it makes the world a more interesting place, supernaturally anyhow.Hehe, I know how you feel. I for one, would love to find out that Norse Mythos is true.

Imagine how kick-ass it'd be to die & wake up in Valhal to drink, fight & fuck, until inevitable doom? The though alone is enough to make me thirsty, horney & violent :D

Satan must be pretty busy, eh?
Funny how he can manage to do so much catastrophe in one day... and yet who ever hears of god's miracles?
Looks like Satan does a better job at what he does, too.
Obviously he works for the right press network! :p

"Evil will always triumph over good, becuase good, is dumb."
-Dark Helmet.
"I see that your schwarz is as big as mine. Now let's see how well you handle it." - Dark Helmet.

Oh brother. I know you are referring to Noah's Ark and yet, 8 people were saved from that devestating Flood.

The world will not be destroyed by water again.
Yes eight WHOLE people were saved. There's mercy in abundance :rolleyes:

As for the world not being destroyed like that again ... it never was the first time, obviously ... but further, you AGAIN are laying claim to knowledge and arrogance of the mind of God and its directive, which you've been called on before.

the Lord's Army, of which, I am apart of.
So how was the hazing in the barracks? Instead of doorknobs, did they use serprents and crucifixes ... perhaps a little "waterboarding" with the holy water?

I have mutilated no rules of debate.
Wh-hahahahahahahahahahaha
hohohohahahahahahahahahaha!!
i can't - hahahaha hahaha*snort*hahahahahahahohohohoho!!!!!!

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/irre.gif

Oh wait, you qualified the difference you make here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11040368&postcount=3564
...a whole host of debating rules that are violated on this forum.

So, to clarify ... you don't "mutilate" them, you "violate" them. :eek:
Ewww!!!
*smilie censored for sensitivity reasons*

I.E. - does anyone else feel violated when they get into an argument with Corny? :D

Yes eight WHOLE people were saved. There's mercy in abundance :rolleyes:

As for the world not being destroyed like that again ... it never was the first time, obviously ... but further, you AGAIN are laying claim to knowledge and arrogance of the mind of God and its directive, which you've been called on before.Another thing to consider, is that the Bible advocates the killing of all who abandon the faith. Since we're supposedly descendents of Noah's crowd, the non-Christians among us have abandoned the faith & need a good killing...

Christianity is terribly nice.

Another thing to consider, is that the Bible advocates the killing of all who abandon the faith. Since we're supposedly descendents of Noah's crowd, the non-Christians among us have abandoned the faith & need a good killing...

Christianity is terribly nice.
I'm not a descendant of Noah's crowd, since i'm an avowed "evolutionist" ... therefore i evolved from a rock. We're all dust, from whence we came, from whence we go, you know. That helps compliment my "golem" status.

;)

"I see that your schwarz is as big as mine. Now let's see how well you handle it." - Dark Helmet.


"Say goodbye to your two best friends, and I dont mean the ones in the Winnebago."
-Dark Helmet, again.

Indeed.

Ooooh, Straughn (and Satan, I guess) ftw.
Ya gotta love the song around that sequence. I sing that to people every now and then to make them leave me alone.
I know i've been a sandy little butt-hole ... :D

I'm not a descendant of Noah's crowd, since i'm an avowed "evolutionist" ... therefore i evolved from a rock. We're all dust, from whence we came, from whence we go, you know. That helps compliment my "golem" status.

;)

I see. You must thence be good at PARA-PARA dance, which a certain obscure golem did in a certain obscure PS2 game. Aha! An obscure reference worthy of Straughndom.

Wrong. A common mistake. I actually know the study you are speeking of. You are speeking of the Mantra study. This study found no benefit either way. What it did find was that another type of alternative therapy being tested at the same time found adverse effects (I believe it was called relaxive light therapy, but am uncertian). And other studies done on a smaller scale have found benefits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3193902.stm
No, YOU'RE wrong. You are being either ignorant are extremely misleading with your post here. You should get off your arrogant kick anyway, it doesn't jibe with your lack of integrity.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/03/30/prayer-heart-surgery-20060330.html
More complications among patients who knew they were prayed for

The patients were then monitored for 30 days for any complications.

The results showed no effect of prayer on the patients' recovery, the researchers said in the journal article, Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients.

The study found 59 per cent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed medical complications. Among those who thought they might be prayed for, 52 per cent had complications.

The researchers said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate among patients who knew they were being prayed for.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ei=5088&en=4acf338be4900000&ex=1301461200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189691,00.html

I see. You must thence be good at PARA-PARA dance, which a certain obscure golem did in a certain obscure PS2 game. Aha! An obscure reference worthy of Straughndom.
Why does everybody keep bringing my cousin up? Aren't i interesting enough? :(



BTW - thanks for actually keeping your sigword. *bows*

Dont worry Corneliu....GNI doesnt have a soul. He has super human personality instead.


:fluffle: @GNI
Scarlet!!!!!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1219.gif
Where the Hades ya been?

Well thats what my experiance of it is.

Well I think you'll find your experience is wrong.

There is no contradiction there at all. The Mark section describes to seperate events. Its the day that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary go to see Jesus tomb. And there was a viloent earthquake. There is no suggestion in the Mark passage that it happens after the women arrive. It couldnt have anyway, since the women would have been stopped by the Roman guards.

It may have escaped your notice but we're discussing the Matthew passage here:

Matt 28:1-2
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

There is no indication that these two events (the women arriving and the stone being pushed away) are not meant to be viewed chronologically as both sentences are in the perfect tense, if the second event was meant to have occured before the first then the pluperfect wopuld have been used. Matthew is clear that the stone was rolled back after the women arrived and therefore it contradicts the other Gospels which claim the stone was already rolled back.

No, but for someone to be as old as Simeon would suggest your life expentency details are flawed, not to mention some of the other older people described in the gospels. Also, it is widely accepted that John was written by an eye witness to Jesus's life so its obvious that one was written within the same generation.

No it doesn't. It's quite possible for people to live a fair way beyond the average life expectancy but they are in the minority. You get the occaisonal person in an African country living to 150 but that doesn't alter the fact that the life expectancy in those countries is very low.

What's more it isn't widely accepted that John was written by an eye-witness, the vast majority of modern scholarship opposes the idea.

I don't like using Wikipedia as a source but it's usually good at giving a sense of what the majority opinion is:

Most scholars posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works)

Great one.

Whenever you get a grip on reality, I'll be here to listen.
And/or drunk and/or stoned ;)

No wonder this religion's central tenet is that the only truly innocent guy had to be tortured and killed for it to work...Za-ZING! :sniper:

And this is yet another sin.
What if it's you in the porn, and he's thinking about Jesus when he's looking at it/you?

I'm not a descendant of Noah's crowd, since i'm an avowed "evolutionist" ... therefore i evolved from a rock. We're all dust, from whence we came, from whence we go, you know. That helps compliment my "golem" status.

;)*Splat!* And thus you plunged right into the deep end of the reason I think "the supernatural" is hillariously inane :p

The religious can't cope with evolution & abiogenesis, because it cheapens their existence & makes them pointless.

Okeeey... Lets see... Deity X makes a mankind out of mud. Alternatively, abiogenesis takes place in some mud. Difference?

Deity X creates mankind, and resuses to comment on the creation, ever. Alternatively, mankind is simply a product of circumstance. Difference?

So why the hell is religion so damn important? Does it offer any answers at all? No? So why all the fuss?

Definitely a no. If this God character did exist with all that goes on, he'd be pretty rubbish so what's the point of him being God... :rolleyes:

*Splat!* And thus you plunged right into the deep end of the reason I think "the supernatural" is hillariously inane :p

The religious can't cope with evolution & abiogenesis, because it cheapens their existence & makes them pointless.Well, perhaps that's why they're so sore about it. They've centered all the meaning in their lives to an abstract vicariousness. Pathetic, even. The best that should be used for, IMNSHO, is ref's on internet forums (so Xislakilinia can catch them ;) ) and perhaps a conversation like Picard had on that one episode with "Darmak and Jilad at Tanagra" or however that went.

Okeeey... Lets see... Deity X makes a mankind out of mud. Alternatively, abiogenesis takes place in some mud. Difference?

Deity X creates mankind, and refuses to comment on the creation, ever. Alternatively, mankind is simply a product of circumstance. Difference?

So why the hell is religion so damn important? Does it offer any answers at all? No? So why all the fuss?Perhaps they have too much family lineage in expensive stationary and really don't want to do the work to change it. I don't have too many other GOOD explanations for that one.
Well, perhaps one - they were pretty proud of swapping the Egyptian symbols around (take the ankh) and they don't like turnabout. :)

Hey Straughn, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485024) is for you buddy. :D

Commie, seriously, do you really think its reasonable to hold Corneliu to a high standard of scientific background? We've all seen his posts.
Well, just because Homer says "i was born an oaf ... and i'll die an oaf" doesn't mean he can't make a light life adjustment and become an astronaut, a bodyguard, or perhaps even a magistrate for a little while.

Hey Straughn, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485024) is for you buddy. :D
That is SO F*CKING COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
*effusive ebullience*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/060.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1219.gif

What if it's you in the porn, and he's thinking about Jesus when he's looking at it/you?

Pornography is diabolic and satanic and the situation you have described is blasphemous.

That is SO F*CKING COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
*effusive ebullience*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/060.gif
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1219.gif
You deserve it mate... :D Nothing like an atheist(?) with a sense of humour... hehehehe

catch the updated bit on my last post.

ultimately the people who wrote it were relying on FAITH, not FACT. these two words are very different, as im sure no two christians in the world have identical faiths, but practically every scientist will understand newtons first law the same way. so even if inspired by god, its a coallition of opinions. making it quite dodgy. u also have the problem that its very old, and has been changed and edited again and again. so unless u took classics and speak dead languages u have another problem

1. Its not a collection of opinions, if you read it is a collection of many different types of literature. Poetry, historical accounts, love songs etc

2. Translation of the Bible is no different from translation of any other historical work

3. Unless you can prove the changes you say are there I suggest you remain quiet about them.

The Bible was written was written with the Divine inspiration of God.

You deserve it mate... :D Nothing like an atheist(?) with a sense of humour... hehehehe
You *KNOW* I owe you. :)
My nation is avowedly atheist, but for a slightly different reason.
I'm actually *NOT* an atheist - i simply don't believe in worshipping ANYTHING i don't have participation with. As yet, there is no evidence to me at all that the Judeo-christian god exists, so that one's right off the list. As are most/all of the other ones (that i know of, anyway)

Pornography is diabolic and satanic
Okay, quick quiz - what's wrong with that part of the statement? Betcha don't know.
and the situation you have described is blasphemous.And yet titillating! Good thing my thumbs never meet your screws. Also, keep thinking about things like that and you might really start to understand the nature of things as they really are. Good "luck".

The Bible was written was written with the Divine inspiration of God.
The divine inspiration i have when i yell out the name of god ... perhaps we should discuss it here, perhaps not ... oh wait, maybe i've already alluded to it ....

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

The Assemblies of God explain it very well:

Pornography
This document reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church's Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does the Assemblies of God stand so strongly against pornography
The Assemblies of God is strongly opposed to all forms of pornography so freely available today. The 1987 Statement on Pornography expresses distress and outrage at "the encroachment of pornographic materials and establishments in America." All around us we see the insidious consequence of pornography on social values, on moral behavior, and on family life.

We believe pornography violates the sexual and moral integrity of human beings. God created human beings as male and female to consummate their sexual union within the security of marriage for the purposes of procreation and mutual intimacy. Pornography encourages sexually immoral thoughts (Matthew 5:28) and actions (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19) and is thus destructive to marital and family relationships.

Though some defenders of pornography dispute the claim, there is no question about the fact pornography is linked with such immoral behavior as promiscuity, sexual abuse, adultery, rape, violence, child abuse, degrading human dignity, sexual dominance, and discrimination. The indirect but real devastation of families and marriages is a high price to pay for this vice which fills the pockets of unprincipled members of organized crime. Pornography is now available at local movie theaters, neighborhood video shops, and on home television and computer software. The Assemblies of God is particularly disturbed at the availability of this diabolical material to children and young people.

The portrayal of nudity which does not involve force, coercion, sexual activity, violence, or degradation is defended by some as having no relation to pornography. Classical paintings of past centuries are presented as evidence along with medical depictions of unclad human bodies which are essential for life-sustaining professions. However, blanket approval of "mere" nudity has its dangers. When does "mere" nudity begin to take on clear suggestions of sexual activity? The impact of such material on children, on attitudes about women, and on the relationship between the sexes must be seriously considered.

CONCERNS:

Of great concern to the Assemblies of God is the current tendency of the purveyors of pornography to defend their malicious production and distribution of the evil material by wrongly appealing to the first amendment to the US Constitution as their guarantee of freedom to publish without challenge, in print, on film, or on the live stage, every kind of degrading and despicable portrayals. Nor can we understand judges who by their concurring rulings rewrite the Constitution to make it say and mean things that were never intended by the original framers. We strongly oppose judges, lawyers, legislators, and politicians who have manipulated the original protection of freedom of religion to exclude Christianity and biblical morality while encouraging all kinds of immorality through the reinterpretation of our Judeo-Christian constitution.

Liberal voices also give a very loose definition to the word censorship. They accuse those who speak out against pornography of being self-appointed censors trying to dictate to everyone else what they can watch or read. But this use of the word censorship is misuse of terminology for the purpose of argumentation. Technically, only a government agency or official can censor or prevent the publication of ideas and entertainment. To prohibit individuals and citizen groups from expressing their convictions on any matter, including what should be the law of the land, is in itself censorship or curtailing the right of free speech. The writers of the US constitution never intended obscenity and immorality to be protected. The right of free speech was declared in order to protect the privilege of individuals to express and publish ideas. Ideas however, are much different from pornography and gross obscenity. Christians and non-Christians both will gain from the free exchange of ideas. Of course, the ideas of Christianity which enhance and build society should not be excluded from the right of free speech, but pornography, immorality, and obscenity like other vices that destroy society must be curbed if our civilization is to survive.

We also express concern over the so-called sex therapists who advise married couples to view pornography in order to add excitement to their marriage relationship. We believe this activity to be wrong for Christian couples because it (1) reduces married love to the level of an animal act, (2) encourages lust rather than true love, and (3) portrays infidelity in a positive light.

We are particularly concerned that the flood of pornography is negatively influencing a generation of children who may grow up without moral principles or standards. The church would desire that all of society accepted and supported the biblical, Judeo-Christian standards of morality. Such a prospect seems highly unlikely. Therefore a great burden is placed on parents to supervise the various forms of popular entertainment their children may view.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching. The official delineation of this position is found in the Assemblies of God "Statement on Pornography" adopted by The General Council, 1987.

All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise specified.

Well I think you'll find your experience is wrong.


Expericance by definition cannot be wrong. The majority of biblical scholars who say what you say in my experiance have been extreme skeptics. But that does not mean that the majority of scholars are skeptics, just the ones I have experianced.


It may have escaped your notice but we're discussing the Matthew passage here:

Matt 28:1-2
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

There is no indication that these two events (the women arriving and the stone being pushed away) are not meant to be viewed chronologically as both sentences are in the perfect tense, if the second event was meant to have occured before the first then the pluperfect wopuld have been used. Matthew is clear that the stone was rolled back after the women arrived and therefore it contradicts the other Gospels which claim the stone was already rolled back.


It does not say that. It talks about the entire passage in the past tense because it was written after the events. It does not give a link to either of these events as you would expect it to. It does not say "when they arrived" or "when they got ther there was an earthquake" etc. It says two events that happened that day with no indication they are linked in terms of time. They are BOTH described in the past tense so there is no logic of you using your ideas there to show a contradiction where there isnt one.


No it doesn't. It's quite possible for people to live a fair way beyond the average life expectancy but they are in the minority. You get the occaisonal person in an African country living to 150 but that doesn't alter the fact that the life expectancy in those countries is very low.

Someone living to Simeons age raises the avarage life expentency signifcently. Its a mathamatical formula. If you have a significent (and while Simeon alone isnt signifecent I'm sure he was not alone in this, as we see several other older figures in the Gospels) body of high numbers it raises the avarage.


What's more it isn't widely accepted that John was written by an eye-witness, the vast majority of modern scholarship opposes the idea.

I don't like using Wikipedia as a source but it's usually good at giving a sense of what the majority opinion is:.

Widely accepted by who again

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

Another li'l gem from AoG:

The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.

The Assemblies of God explain it very well:

Pornography
This document reflects commonly held beliefs based on scripture which have been endorsed by the church's Commission on Doctrinal Purity and the Executive Presbytery.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does the Assemblies of God stand so strongly against pornography
The Assemblies of God is strongly opposed to all forms of pornography so freely available today. The 1987 Statement on Pornography expresses distress and outrage at "the encroachment of pornographic materials and establishments in America." All around us we see the insidious consequence of pornography on social values, on moral behavior, and on family life.

We believe pornography violates the sexual and moral integrity of human beings. God created human beings as male and female to consummate their sexual union within the security of marriage for the purposes of procreation and mutual intimacy. Pornography encourages sexually immoral thoughts (Matthew 5:28) and actions (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19) and is thus destructive to marital and family relationships.

Though some defenders of pornography dispute the claim, there is no question about the fact pornography is linked with such immoral behavior as promiscuity, sexual abuse, adultery, rape, violence, child abuse, degrading human dignity, sexual dominance, and discrimination. The indirect but real devastation of families and marriages is a high price to pay for this vice which fills the pockets of unprincipled members of organized crime. Pornography is now available at local movie theaters, neighborhood video shops, and on home television and computer software. The Assemblies of God is particularly disturbed at the availability of this diabolical material to children and young people.

The portrayal of nudity which does not involve force, coercion, sexual activity, violence, or degradation is defended by some as having no relation to pornography. Classical paintings of past centuries are presented as evidence along with medical depictions of unclad human bodies which are essential for life-sustaining professions. However, blanket approval of "mere" nudity has its dangers. When does "mere" nudity begin to take on clear suggestions of sexual activity? The impact of such material on children, on attitudes about women, and on the relationship between the sexes must be seriously considered.

CONCERNS:

Of great concern to the Assemblies of God is the current tendency of the purveyors of pornography to defend their malicious production and distribution of the evil material by wrongly appealing to the first amendment to the US Constitution as their guarantee of freedom to publish without challenge, in print, on film, or on the live stage, every kind of degrading and despicable portrayals. Nor can we understand judges who by their concurring rulings rewrite the Constitution to make it say and mean things that were never intended by the original framers. We strongly oppose judges, lawyers, legislators, and politicians who have manipulated the original protection of freedom of religion to exclude Christianity and biblical morality while encouraging all kinds of immorality through the reinterpretation of our Judeo-Christian constitution.

Liberal voices also give a very loose definition to the word censorship. They accuse those who speak out against pornography of being self-appointed censors trying to dictate to everyone else what they can watch or read. But this use of the word censorship is misuse of terminology for the purpose of argumentation. Technically, only a government agency or official can censor or prevent the publication of ideas and entertainment. To prohibit individuals and citizen groups from expressing their convictions on any matter, including what should be the law of the land, is in itself censorship or curtailing the right of free speech. The writers of the US constitution never intended obscenity and immorality to be protected. The right of free speech was declared in order to protect the privilege of individuals to express and publish ideas. Ideas however, are much different from pornography and gross obscenity. Christians and non-Christians both will gain from the free exchange of ideas. Of course, the ideas of Christianity which enhance and build society should not be excluded from the right of free speech, but pornography, immorality, and obscenity like other vices that destroy society must be curbed if our civilization is to survive.

We also express concern over the so-called sex therapists who advise married couples to view pornography in order to add excitement to their marriage relationship. We believe this activity to be wrong for Christian couples because it (1) reduces married love to the level of an animal act, (2) encourages lust rather than true love, and (3) portrays infidelity in a positive light.

We are particularly concerned that the flood of pornography is negatively influencing a generation of children who may grow up without moral principles or standards. The church would desire that all of society accepted and supported the biblical, Judeo-Christian standards of morality. Such a prospect seems highly unlikely. Therefore a great burden is placed on parents to supervise the various forms of popular entertainment their children may view.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching. The official delineation of this position is found in the Assemblies of God "Statement on Pornography" adopted by The General Council, 1987.

All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise specified.
Well, that's an awful lot of letters in some kind of arrangement (perhaps a semblence of order) for a point i wasn't referring to.
I should thank your efforts to be ... uhm, accurate, according to your ... uhm, source, but that wasn't the point at all.
And BTW, i could give a fat f*ck less what that bunch of people think in this regard. Well, maybe just a little .... perhaps if you explained it again.

Don't you mean the unjustifiable intent to indoctrinate and enslave, Georgia? Furthermore, the statement was not blasphemous, as that would require a God or divine being to blaspheme.

The only argument that is even semi-logical for believing in God is Pascal's Wager, but this falls flat as soon as you realise how many different Gods and faiths there are. People waste their lives, devoting them to something which is a mere concept without existence, it is pitiful. Honestly, I've never met a Christian (or any other religious person for that matter) who can justiify their beliefs. When I started studying philosophy at AS level, there were 5 of 17 people who were Christians. As soon as we studied the philosophy of religion (and tore apart the 'classic proofs'), this fell to 1. Odd how the application of logic can destroy faith, it can be inferred from this that faith is illogical. After all, philosophically speaking, the definition of faith is unjustified belief.

Another li'l gem from AoG:

The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.
What a convincing ... erm, well, i was going to say "argument" but that's not the right word.
Hmmm. "Charisma" doesn't fit .... "stance" is a bit closer ... i just keep drifting around "waste of time" ... but then, there's the redeeming quality of ... huh, lost it. Oh well.

I justify my beliefs through the Divinely inspired Bible. I am sorry to hear about the four dissenters from your class, I am praying for their souls so that they may find the Lord and be born again.

Don't you mean the unjustifiable intent to indoctrinate and enslave, Georgia? Furthermore, the statement was not blasphemous, as that would require a God or divine being to blaspheme.

The only argument that is even semi-logical for believing in God is Pascal's Wager, but this falls flat as soon as you realise how many different Gods and faiths there are. People waste their lives, devoting them to something which is a mere concept without existence, it is pitiful. Honestly, I've never met a Christian (or any other religious person for that matter) who can justiify their beliefs. When I started studying philosophy at AS level, there were 5 of 17 people who were Christians. As soon as we studied the philosophy of religion (and tore apart the 'classic proofs'), this fell to 1. Odd how the application of logic can destroy faith, it can be inferred from this that faith is illogical. After all, philosophically speaking, the definition of faith is unjustified belief.I'd like to be (one of) the first to extend appreciation for your new post and new nation status here on NS, if i may.
Good post. *bows*
Welcome to NS Forums. They can definitely be entertaining.

What a convincing ... erm, well, i was going to say "argument" but that's not the right word.
Hmmm. "Charisma" doesn't fit .... "stance" is a bit closer ... i just keep drifting around "waste of time" ... but then, there's the redeeming quality of ... huh, lost it. Oh well.

You need a bit more Jesus and a lot less of the tendency to be a know-it-all.

Another li'l gem from AoG:

The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.
Sounds scary, that...

You need a bit more Jesus and a lot less of the tendency to be a know-it-all.
Says the person who just said that Michael Jackson should have been executed.

Georgia, you need a little less of a tendency to be the know-it-not-at-all. The bible is not divinely inspired, it was written by man to create fear in the lower classes, causing them to adhere in hope of some karma in an afterlife, which is yet another concept fabricated by man in an attempt to manipulate the masses.

Saying you justify your belief through the bible is not enough, for how do you justify your belief in the bible?

Thanks Straughn, good to be here.

You need a bit more Jesus and a lot less of the tendency to be a know-it-all.
A bit more Jesus? Like the naughty bits?

Oh, i get it, it's like this ...
Translation:
You need a bit more stupidity, blind faith and gullibility and a lot less of the tendency to be self-reliant in principle, behaviour, mannerism, responsibility, and faculty.
Although i can't imagine why anyone would be proud that they manage to keep the "less tending-to-be-a-know-it-all"s as their showpieces. Well, i can after reviewing how much BS is required to be SWALLOWED by most of the popular religion.
For the record, Jesus/Horus/Mithra was actually pretty cool in a lot of respects.
But if you're interested in my mannerisms, quit spamming this thread and go to the thread Assis made about this particular issue.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485024


Tah!

Says the person who just said that Michael Jackson should have been executed.

The man is guilty; he's paid off victims.

Georgia, you need a little less of a tendency to be the know-it-not-at-all. The bible is not divinely inspired, it was written by man to create fear in the lower classes, causing them to adhere in hope of some karma in an afterlife, which is yet another concept fabricated by man in an attempt to manipulate the masses.

Saying you justify your belief through the bible is not enough, for how do you justify your belief in the bible?

Thanks Straughn, good to be here.

I have faith, like the millions of other born again Evangelical Christians, there has been a point in my life where God has given me a choice, I took the road of the Lord, accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and the Bible as the Divinely inspired truth.

The man is guilty; he's paid off victims.
Then his victims are as guilty as him because they sold his conviction for money. And since when Jesus condemned anyone to death? And since when is the sentence for child abuse "death"?

I justify my beliefs through the Divinely inspired Bible. I am sorry to hear about the four dissenters from your class, I am praying for their souls so that they may find the Lord and be born again.
Hey go back a page or so and read the results of intercessory prayer in the NEWEST AND BIGGEST STUDY before you attempt to inflict something on people YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW.
How evil can you get?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu86.gif

Since you dodged the question, this still leaves the issue of what justifies your faith. You gave no reason why the bible is gospel truth, if you pardon the pun. There is no empirical proof to verify the word of the bible, so in that case, shouldn't every such book be taken as undisputable truth? Ok, I'll go off to read the Da Vinci Code and chortle when i hear abuot how Jesus had sex with Mary Magdelene.

I have faith, like the millions of other born again Evangelical Christians, there has been a point in my life where God has given me a choice, I took the road of the Lord, accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and the Bible as the Divinely inspired truth.
Yes, i guess "accept" would be the right term here. "Swallow" does nicely too, as i'd mentioned earlier.
So if you're born again, does that mean you have two belly-buttons? Where's the second? Is it in some kind of Hieronymous Bosch-respect?

Since you dodged the question, this still leaves the issue of what justifies your faith. You gave no reason why the bible is gospel truth, if you pardon the pun. There is no empirical proof to verify the word of the bible, so in that case, shouldn't every such book be taken as undisputable truth? Ok, I'll go off to read the Da Vinci Code and chortle when i hear abuot how Jesus had sex with Mary Magdelene.

Trust me, when Jesus comes into your life, you know that He exists and the Bible is the Divine truth.

Then his victims are as guilty as him because they sold his conviction for money. And since when Jesus condemned anyone to death? And since when is the sentence for child abuse "death"?

I can answer on behalf of Georgia here; the sentence for child abuse is NOT death. Otherwise, there would be a shortage of clergymen.

Ok, I'll go off to read the Da Vinci Code and chortle when i hear abuot how Jesus had sex with Mary Magdelene.
Hey, that sounds titillatingly pornographic!
Does he yell "Eloi, eloi" about HIMSELF or not when that great climax comes?
What does she yell? Anything? Is she reading and waiting for him to get done?

EDIT: I can't believe i missed the obvious ones...
IS he into ... BDSM?
Golden showers?
Roleplaying? :D

As i understand, ALL of those apply (if the "universal" church has anything to do with it)

Trust me, when Jesus comes into your life, you know that He exists and the Bible is the Divine truth.


When fictional characters can be brought into existence, maybe I'll believe you. Why do you believe in the bible? Why do you believe it is 'The Divine Truth' or 'Divinely Inspired'? There is no reason to, other than a few raving lunatics preaching from pulpits tell you. Do you believe all that you're told? If so, I shall tell you that rational thought is good for your health.

I can answer on behalf of Georgia here; the sentence for child abuse is NOT death. Otherwise, there would be a shortage of clergymen.

Since he has sexually abused boys, that amounts to homosexual conduct.

The Catholic Church has paid out since 1945, over $500,000,000 in child sex abuse compensation and they do have shortage of priests.

It does not say that. It talks about the entire passage in the past tense because it was written after the events. It does not give a link to either of these events as you would expect it to. It does not say "when they arrived" or "when they got ther there was an earthquake" etc. It says two events that happened that day with no indication they are linked in terms of time. They are BOTH described in the past tense so there is no logic of you using your ideas there to show a contradiction where there isnt one.

If you're using the same tense then unless you say otherwise it's assumed you're talking in chronological order. As I've already pointed out to you there is a tense used to talk about events before other events in the past: it's called the pluperfect tense and it isn't used in this passage.

Allow me to demonstrate:

I got onto the plane. I hurt my leg (perfect tense). This means that I'd hurt my leg after getting onto the plane.

I got onto the plane. I had hurt my leg (pluperfect tense). This means that I'd hurt my leg before getting onto the plane.

Matthew is writing solely in the perfect tense, it's very simple.

Someone living to Simeons age raises the avarage life expentency signifcently. Its a mathamatical formula. If you have a significent (and while Simeon alone isnt signifecent I'm sure he was not alone in this, as we see several other older figures in the Gospels) body of high numbers it raises the avarage.

No it doesn't. You seem to like links (http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/documents/Life.html) so here's a scholarly one for you. It's for Roman life expectancy but it shows how, even for a life expectancy of 25, some people still live to old ages.

Widely accepted by who again

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

Widely accepted by most reputable scholars who aren't inerrantist apologetics. :rolleyes:

there would be a shortage of clergymen.
Amen to that.

Trust me, when Jesus comes into your life, you know that He exists and the Bible is the Divine truth.
I doubt that Jesus has come to your life. If he had you wouldn't be spitting hate and death. Woe to you...

Since he has sexually abused boys, that amounts to homosexual conduct.

The Catholic Church has paid out since 1945, over $500,000,000 in child sex abuse compensation and they do have shortage of priests.

Yeah, which shows that they are not fit to enforce their own alleged morality on the people when they themselves can not abide by their own church's moral codes. If they could abide by these codes, there wouldn't be these compensation claims.

And are you about to rant about homosexuality is wrong? I bet you can't justify that either. Not to mention many of the children abused by priests were boys.

Since he has sexually abused boys, that amounts to homosexual conduct.

The Catholic Church has paid out since 1945, over $500,000,000 in child sex abuse compensation and they do have shortage of priests.

What does homosexual conduct has to do with anything here? Are you implying it would be ok if he had fucked little girls instead? Or rather, was accused of fucking them???

I doubt that Jesus has come to your life. If he had you wouldn't be spitting hate and death. Woe to you...

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Anybody who repents can become a child of God.

What does homosexual conduct has to do with anything here? Are you implying it would be ok if he had fucked little girls instead? Or rather, was accused of fucking them???

No, I am just saying homosexual abuse is worse than heterosexual abuse because of the homosexual element of it.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Anybody who repents can become a child of God.
How 'bout Children of a Lesser God?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090830/

No, I am just saying homosexual abuse is worse than heterosexual abuse because of the homosexual element of it.

So, in essence, you're saying that raping a 10-year-old girl is better than raping a 10-year-old boy?

:eek:

No, I am just saying homosexual abuse is worse than heterosexual abuse because of the homosexual element of it.
Translation:
Some rapes are better/more okay than other rapes.


Less "hail mary"'s, heysannahosanna and rosary fiddling. Less finger cramps. :mad:

Once more, my word of the day pops up; justification. What makes the 'homosexual element' of the abuse any worse than a 'heterosexual element' of abuse? Of course, I don't expect an answer from you, any valid points or criticisms you choose to blatantly disregard.

God will forgive anybody who truly repents.

Once more, my word of the day pops up; justification. What makes the 'homosexual element' of the abuse any worse than a 'heterosexual element' of abuse? Of course, I don't expect an answer from you, any valid points or criticisms you choose to blatantly disregard.

He seems a rather boring troll, that's true

I'm doing nothing of the sort. Anybody who repents can become a child of God.
Of course you're not spitting death; you just said that Michael Jackson should be executed.

Not really. He said "If". He didn't say "your claim is true". He said "If". Not supporting. Assuming.
Just so. As I said, it is temporarily lending credence to the idea.

Leviticus 18:22: �Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

Leviticus 20:13 provides a restatement, �If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they should be put to death, both of them have done what is detestable, their blood will be on their own heads.

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God� (1 Corinthians 6:9,10).

Of course you're not spitting death; you just said that Michael Jackson should be executed.

For allegedly raping little boys instead of little girls :p

Of course you're not spitting death; you just said that Michael Jackson should be executed.

He shows no repentance.

Leviticus 18:22: �Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

Leviticus 20:13 provides a restatement, �If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they should be put to death, both of them have done what is detestable, their blood will be on their own heads.

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God� (1 Corinthians 6:9,10).

Wait... hang on.... now you're saying you don't only want Michael Jackson executed, but the boy he's supposed to have abused as well???

You don't understand that Bob's position and Albert's points were at odds? That Albert successfully supported a position contrary to Bob's?
Yes, they were at odds. Then Albert temporarily lent credence to Bob's position in order to make his point. As I said earlier, I am not suggesting that he jumped ships.

For allegedly raping little boys instead of little girls :p
Good shot! :mp5:

God will forgive anybody who truly repents.

Yes, and the easter bunny shall bring me chocolate once a year, Santa Claus shall pop down my chimney despite me not having one and fill my stockings with nuts and presents, while the tooth fairy gives me 50p for the chipping of tooth under my pillow from my face hitting a banister after being tripped over my cat. Elvis shall play a concert in my back garden tomorrow, and the boogeyman is reading this from the closet behind me, ready to pounce.

Georgia, if you fail to get the point to this post, you are an idiot.

He shows no repentance.
You know what the funny thing is ... god barely does either.
But it does show regret, besides a baffling array of other all-too-human qualities.

The Assemblies of God explain it very well:

We believe pornography violates the sexual and moral integrity of human beings. God created human beings as male and female to consummate their sexual union within the security of marriage for the purposes of procreation and mutual intimacy. Pornography encourages sexually immoral thoughts (Matthew 5:28) and actions (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19) and is thus destructive to marital and family relationships. <Snip>1. Prove abovementioned "God" created human beings.
2. Prove the intent of this "God".
3. Prove the accuracy of the Bible.
4. Prove the cause-effect relationship you claim exists between pronography & various human relations.

Should you fail to prove any one of these points, the entire diatribe is nonsense. Good luck defying logic.

Yeah, I saw earlier how much fun you were having, when you were getting angered by Corny to the point that you wanted to kill him. Fantastic "intellectual exercize" there and certainly a glorious example of great "debate tactics".

It was a great "intellectual exercise" in how fast I can make him mad :D

God is not logical, He doesn't fit in with science, maths, logic, He fits in with faith.

God is not logical, He doesn't fit in with science, maths, logic, He fits in with faith.

In that case, he most likely doesn't fit into any judical system either and should not be used as a basis of verdict for people who have yet to be proven guilty.

Our Lord, has the ultimate judicial system, the laws are laid out in the Bible.

Nope. He told them all. He even gave them a last chance before He sent the fire and such. They just didn't listen. Like most people don't listen to Him today.

Which is unfortunate :(

God has rightly ordained human government, even when those authorities make laws and commit actions that violate God's law. Christians should never scoff at human law and authorities. But obedience to human laws should never force or lead a Christian to sin against God's law. Christians are held to a higher standard than the laws of any human society.

Corny! There's a poll you should take on Assis's thread!
If ya haven't already.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485024

Leviticus 18:22: �Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

Leviticus 20:13 provides a restatement, �If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they should be put to death, both of them have done what is detestable, their blood will be on their own heads.

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God� (1 Corinthians 6:9,10).So, basically, men on men would be bad, but lesbians are ok?

God has rightly ordained human government, even when those authorities make laws and commit actions that violate God's law.Sounds like "divine right of kings" all over again to me.

In that case, he most likely doesn't fit into any judical system either and should not be used as a basis of verdict for people who have yet to be proven guilty.
You are f*cking spot-on this eve, m'lady. *bows*



:sniper:

Our Lord, has the ultimate judicial system, the laws are laid out in the Bible.As long as you have no justification for your beliefs, you cannot assert them as "truth". To do so would be a lie.

Most modern governments & legal systems, are seperated from religions.Thus your theocratic bullshit is not applicable. If that is what you desire, however, there are nations that live under theocratic rule & employ Sharia law. These are virtually identical to Christian Biblical rules, so you shouldn't have too hard a time adjusting.

God has rightly ordained human government, even when those authorities make laws and commit actions that violate God's law. Christians should never scoff at human law and authorities. But obedience to human laws should never force or lead a Christian to sin against God's law. Christians are held to a higher standard than the laws of any human society.

Well, then do so if you feel like it, but leave us non-Christians alone and don't ask us to kill someone simply because you believe that he abused a male child rather than a female...

To those who witnessed on a daily basis the sexual license of imperial Rome, Paul depicted the results that followed in the lives of those who rejected God and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. . . . Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Romans 1:25-27). Paul is referring to both male homosexuality and lesbianism

God has rightly ordained human government, even when those authorities make laws and commit actions that violate God's law. Christians should never scoff at human law and authorities. But obedience to human laws should never force or lead a Christian to sin against God's law. Christians are held to a higher standard than the laws of any human society.Hey, Iran's looking for people with your mentality ... good luck with the conversion.

Well, then do so if you feel like it, but leave us non-Christians alone and don't ask us to kill someone simply because you believe that he abused a male child rather than a female...

He did, he was only found innocent because of public pressure and a jury full of liberal Californian nutjobs.

For allegedly raping little boys instead of little girls :p
Either way, equally disgusting.

To those who witnessed on a daily basis the sexual license of imperial Rome, Paul depicted the results that followed in the lives of those who rejected God and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. . . . Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Romans 1:25-27). Paul is referring to both male homosexuality and lesbianismDid your god write that?

... Not a terribly eloquent bloke, is he?

Georgia, any argument about God's law, God's nature, God's will, God's intent and such like are most likely unprovable. Similarly, the reason no argument about God's existence can be proved is simple; he doesn't exist. You cannot define something into existence (the ontological proof), you cannot reach false conclusion when so many other explanations of equal or greater merit and probability are available (the cosmological/ontological proof) and you cannot claim a 'perfect' being who is unniversally consistent could instill differing morality onto different people (the moral argument). Also, you can't prove God by referring to unproven testimony of people who are delusional (The argument from religious experience/religious delusion).

So, until you prove God exists, stop saying 'God this, God that', for it is completely without meaning.

Did your god write that?

... Not a terribly eloquent bloke, is he?

I am praying for your soul.

Well, then do so if you feel like it, but leave us non-Christians alone and don't ask us to kill someone simply because you believe that he abused a male child rather than a female...
If you don't mind a small correction "leave us non-Christians and Christians alone."

To those who witnessed on a daily basis the sexual license of imperial Rome, Paul depicted the results that followed in the lives of those who rejected God and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. . . . Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Romans 1:25-27). Paul is referring to both male homosexuality and lesbianismHe also seems to be a bit mistaken about the term "natural".

I am praying for your soul.
Stop doing that. I told you earlier to educate yourself on the topic, and yet you continue like you are a twisted f*ck. You're damning people unnecessarily.

Thread title: Do you have faith in God? - I am displaying that I do have faith in God. As an American citizen, I have the right to free speech so I will say what I wish.

He did, he was only found innocent because of public pressure and a jury full of liberal Californian nutjobs....and not because there was considerable doubt as to whether a family that was involved in numerous scams before might be telling the truth.

Georgia, you need a little less of a tendency to be the know-it-not-at-all.
After reading your post, perhaps you should follow your own advice?

The bible is not divinely inspired,
You can prove this statement?

it was written by man to create fear in the lower classes, causing them to adhere in hope of some karma in an afterlife, which is yet another concept fabricated by man in an attempt to manipulate the masses.
The Bible was written by a man, as in one person? Again, some proof would help your case.

Saying you justify your belief through the bible is not enough, for how do you justify your belief in the bible?
If someone states that they justify their belief in God through the works of the Bible, who are you to say that they can't?

Either way, equally disgusting.

Not according to this guy....

Stop doing that. I told you earlier to educate yourself on the topic, and yet you continue like you are a twisted f*ck. You're damning people unnecessarily.

You need serious spiritual help.

Our Lord, has the ultimate judicial system, the laws are laid out in the Bible.
So leave the judging to God, instead of trying to usurp His court.

I am praying for your soul.Look, I'm willing to put up with all your hellfire nonsense, but kindly refrain from praying for me, parts of me, or my misspelled footwear.

If I was given to superstition, I'd think you were out to hurt me. After all, the only remotely credible study shows that people who're prayed for, suffer more.

Or should I start praying for you? - Keep in mind your deity isn't my cup of tea.

You need serious spiritual help.
So do you...

He did, he was only found innocent because of public pressure and a jury full of liberal Californian nutjobs.

He was found innocent. Period. The thing about being found innocent by a judge and jury in the so-called civilised world is, you don't get punished. It's as simple as that.

If he really did molest children, you for one can hope for a nice eternity of fire and brimstone for him, so why would you have him executed against judgement?

So do you...If you ask me, he needs a nice padded cell & some friends in clean white coats.. And presumably a hell of a lot of pills.

Thread title: Do you have faith in God? - I am displaying that I do have faith in God. As an American citizen, I have the right to free speech so I will say what I wish.

Except that free speech doesn't apply on a privately owned board...

You are f*cking spot-on this eve, m'lady. *bows*



:sniper:

Hehe.... thank you :D

This troll is really making me feel so much better about myself :p ;)

God is Santa Claus for adults.:headbang:

Stop doing that. I told you earlier to educate yourself on the topic, and yet you continue like you are a twisted f*ck. You're damning people unnecessarily.
Don't worry Straughn. The only soul he's damning with this self-righteous judgement is his own.

Hehe.... thank you :D

This troll is really making me feel so much better about myself :p ;)It's the great thing about Jesussaves goblins. They everything else seem like pure bliss :p

So, until you prove God exists, stop saying 'God this, God that', for it is completely without meaning.
I think that until you can prove that God doesn't exist, then you are in no position to tell people what they can or cannot say about their God. Even freedom of speech affords people that license.

You need serious spiritual help.
No, i need to SHARE. Since you seem to think you're in the "rehabilitation" biz, you'd understand that in order to "feel my pain", you'll have to undergo some type of ritual with me ... perhaps a drug trip, perhaps a game of scrabble, perhaps matching tattoos, perhaps some cohabitation and a time-share.
But you're not likely to know the real me unless you risk a little suffering.
And until that happens, you've got no real clue or angle to the state of my spiritual health.
Thanx though, sweetie.

Except that free speech doesn't apply on a privately owned board...

Does the honorable gentlemen own this board?

No, i need to SHARE. Since you seem to think you're in the "rehabilitation" biz, you'd understand that in order to "feel my pain", you'll have to undergo some type of ritual with me ... perhaps a drug trip, perhaps a game of scrabble, perhaps matching tattoos, perhaps some cohabitation and a time-share.
But you're not likely to know the real me unless you risk a little suffering.
And until that happens, you've got no real clue or angle to the state of my spiritual health.
Thanx though, sweetie.

Hey, I'd share the pain of a game of Scrabble with you.... dirty words and blasphemies allowed?

No, i need to SHARE. Since you seem to think you're in the "rehabilitation" biz, you'd understand that in order to "feel my pain", you'll have to undergo some type of ritual with me ... perhaps a drug trip, perhaps a game of scrabble, perhaps matching tattoos, perhaps some cohabitation and a time-share.
But you're not likely to know the real me unless you risk a little suffering.
And until that happens, you've got no real clue or angle to the state of my spiritual health.
Thanx though, sweetie.

May be not, but Jesus knows.

Don't worry Straughn. The only soul he's damning with this self-righteousness judgement is his own.
You're probably right - i may be judging too harshly. Perhaps The State of Georgia can express some of these issues better on your thread. *nods*
Lo, that's pretty much what it was intended for, isn't it? :D

anyway thank you very much to the believers whove been discussing this with me in this thread. if u want to try and convince me some more "the vallies of death" is your drop by.

let i comfort u in this: if god is real, he will try and save me (again) when im ready. and hopefully i wil be listening. if he isnt, then it makes no difference whatsoever.

Yes he will try to save you again just like he saved me again. Go in peace :)

May be not, but Jesus knows.
Jesus/Horus/Mithra is The Shadow/Santa Claus? :eek:

Does the honorable gentlemen own this board?

Irrelevant. You claimed that your US citizenship gave you the right to free speech on this board. I showed that it didn't.

Please continue with your scheduled trolling.

Canuckheaven, good to see that someone of an opposing view has the capacity for logic. in fact, you caught me out on me stating that the bible is not divinely inspired, for I cannot prove it so it was hypocritical of me to state it. Also, I said man as opposed to a man. Try not to take my words out of context.

Regarding me saying he cannot use the bible as justification, there is no reasonable justification for using the bible as justification. Consequently, I think I'm within my limits and within reason to claim the bible cannot be used as justification.

Hey, I'd share the pain of a game of Scrabble with you.... dirty words and blasphemies allowed?
YESYESYES indeedy!! WooT!

I think that until you can prove that God doesn't exist, then you are in no position to tell people what they can or cannot say about their God. Even freedom of speech affords people that license.Freedom of speech is besides the point here.

Unless you can demonstrate with reasonable certainty that something is true, you should refrain from asserting it as the truth - especially if you desire to participate in a constructive debate.

For example, I could claim that Odin is the king of all gods. The Sagas back my claim. I cannot, however, assert this as truth, because I cannot demonstrate that Odin exists, or ever existed. I cannot even verify the accuracy of the Sagas.

This is equally true for Christianity & its scripture.

So leave the judging to God, instead of trying to usurp His court.
RAmen to that!!!

You're probably right - i may be judging too harshly. Perhaps The State of Georgia can express some of these issues better on your thread. *nods*
Lo, that's pretty much what it was intended for, isn't it? :D
Oh yes... It was God's true way to get even with you... :D

Hehe.... thank you :D

This troll is really making me feel so much better about myself :p ;)
Isn't that what they're supposed to be for? :D

Irrelevant. You claimed that your US citizenship gave you the right to free speech on this board. I showed that it didn't.

Please continue with your scheduled trolling.

I have the right to free speech, but I am technically not speaking on this board so everybody is incorrect.

Oh yes... It was God's true way to get even with you... :D
Klaus: It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.
Detective: Agreed. We'll be charging them too.
;)

Freedom of speech is besides the point here.

Unless you can demonstrate with reasonable certainty that something is true, you should refrain from asserting it as the truth - especially if you desire to participate in a constructive debate.

For example, I could claim that Odin is the king of all gods. The Sagas back my claim. I cannot, however, assert this as truth, because I cannot demonstrate that Odin exists, or ever existed. I cannot even verify the accuracy of the Sagas.

This is equally true for Christianity & its scripture.

I KNOW that the Bible is true and God exists.

I KNOW that the Bible is true and God exists.

Knowledge is justified, true belief. There is no justification and the truth cannot be determined, so you know nothing.

I KNOW that the Bible is true and God exists.

And I KNOW that Tolkien's Middle Earth exists.... and I have about as much proof as you do.

I KNOW that the Bible is true and God exists.You may have managed to convince yourself of it, but in reality, no one knows and no one will know until they die or judgement day (or Ragnarok) happens.

I have the right to free speech, but I am technicsally not speaking on this board so everybody is incorrect.Free Speech covers writing as well as actual speech. You are, however, expressing yourself in a UK-based fora, operated by a merry band of mods, who in turn enforce the rules of both Jolt.uk & Max Berry. These two parties have defined the the limits whithing which you are free to express yourself, and by being here, you have agreed to abide by their rules & the judgement of the staff they employ.

That simple.

There's no freedom, just Max & Jolt.

Trust me, if any of you are ever born again, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I KNOW that the Bible is true and God exists.What exactly do you mean by "know"?

Do you mean "feel" or do you mean that you have actual knowledge about the state of your deity?

Trust me, if any of you are ever born again, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Well, yes, and if I lost my mind I'd know what a mental patient was talking about.

Yes eight WHOLE people were saved. There's mercy in abundance :rolleyes:

Well he could've killed everyone.

As for the world not being destroyed like that again ... it never was the first time, obviously ... but further, you AGAIN are laying claim to knowledge and arrogance of the mind of God and its directive, which you've been called on before.

There has only be One Global Flood and it wasn't due to the Ice Caps melting.

So how was the hazing in the barracks? Instead of doorknobs, did they use serprents and crucifixes ... perhaps a little "waterboarding" with the holy water?

:rolleyes:

Trust me, if any of you are ever born again, you'll know what I'm talking about.If I'm ever born again, I prolly won't be aware of it. But should I be, I'll probably not believe in your deity, but rather in a religion that preaches reincarnation.


Mate, you were never reborn. You just lost use of your faculties. There's a difference.

I have the right to free speech, but I am technically not speaking on this board so everybody is incorrect.
Freedom of speech is not the right to say whatever you want. It is the right not to be arrested by the government for saying whatever you want.

Trust me, if any of you are ever born again, you'll know what I'm talking about.Thing is, I already do. Humans are wonderfully capable of convincing themselves of things without looking at reason. It isn't limited to any one social group.

Trust me, if any of you are ever born again, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Hahhaaha!
You were born ONCE. Got it? ONCE. Quit trying to run from your meritous past like a coward, and own up to the responsibilty of your successes and failures. Don't sweep it under the carpet, and don't go "oh i'm all better now", and i would recommend NOT trying to convince everyone ELSE to be as irresponsible as you're appearing to be.
What a preposterous lack of sense.

:rolleyes:Debating with you is just so incredibly stimulating.

John 3:3; look it up.

:rolleyes:
You forget too quickly when someone tells you how *NOT* to summate an "argument" ... ;)

Hahhaaha!
You were born ONCE. Got it? ONCE. Quit trying to run from your meritous past like a coward, and own up to the responsibilty of your successes and failures. Don't sweep it under the carpet, and don't go "oh i'm all better now", and i would recommend NOT trying to convince everyone ELSE to be as irresponsible as you're appearing to be.
What a preposterous lack of sense.

Born again refers to being born spiritually.

Knowledge is justified, true belief. There is no justification and the truth cannot be determined, so you know nothing.
That's one context of the word. ...keep going.

Well he could've killed everyone.
And he certainly doesn't stop reminding everyone of that by his very nature now, does he?
Especially given the people who say he talks to them like to be reminded of it fairly well.


There has only be One Global Flood and it wasn't due to the Ice Caps melting.You don't know what you're talking about here, so i'll let it go at that.

I KNOW that the Bible is true and God exists.
No you don't. You BELIEVE that the Bible is true and that god exists.

John 3:3; look it up.Interestingly enough, not everyone will have a bible handy.

Born again refers to being born spiritually.
And therefore you're deceived. Greatest trick Satan ever pulled was making people think they got away from him.

But if you like here's an example of being born spiritually - ever been truly LOST in a tantric orgasm? I doubt it. But i was most certainly spiritually reborn and envigorated. So do you want to hear ME preach the same?

No you don't. You BELIEVE that the Bible is true and that god exists.I, on the other hand, KNOW I'd like to know his dealer.

Freedom of speech is besides the point here.
I disagree.

Unless you can demonstrate with reasonable certainty that something is true, you should refrain from asserting it as the truth - especially if you desire to participate in a constructive debate.
If that was the case, then this thread would not have gone past page one?

For example, I could claim that Odin is the king of all gods. The Sagas back my claim. I cannot, however, assert this as truth, because I cannot demonstrate that Odin exists, or ever existed. I cannot even verify the accuracy of the Sagas.
You however, can assert it as your truth. It may not be true in the classical sense, but it is nonetheless your truth. Yes that is freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

John 3:3; look it up.
Jesus said, "You're absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it's not possible to see what I'm pointing to—to God's kingdom."
~The Message

Interestingly enough, not everyone will have a bible handy.Really? (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Jhn/Jhn003.html)

Well he could've killed everyone.
Instead he drowned the entire world except one family. A world full of babies and children who hadn't really done anything so terrible they deserved to be drowned. Well, really a world mostly full of people whose "sins" wouldn't normally merit an execution.
Not to mention all the animals that weren't on the ark...

There has only be One Global Flood and it wasn't due to the Ice Caps melting.
Too bad there's no geological evidence of this global flood.

Where's the agnostic option?

John 3:3; look it up.
Do not judge lest you be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

[Matthew 7:1-5]

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Where's the agnostic option?
I'm afraid we've been left out.... :D

Where's the agnostic option?
I would say at this point it's more of a "movement" than an option ...

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/870.gif

Instead he drowned the entire world except one family. A world full of babies and children who hadn't really done anything so terrible they deserved to be drowned. Well, really a world mostly full of people whose "sins" wouldn't normally merit an execution.
Not to mention all the animals that weren't on the ark...


Too bad there's no geological evidence of this global flood.

Oil is the result of the drowned creatures and people.

Georgia, you need a little less of a tendency to be the know-it-not-at-all. The bible is not divinely inspired, it was written by man to create fear in the lower classes, causing them to adhere in hope of some karma in an afterlife, which is yet another concept fabricated by man in an attempt to manipulate the masses.

Saying you justify your belief through the bible is not enough, for how do you justify your belief in the bible?

Thanks Straughn, good to be here.

Prove that it wasn't divinely inspired. Oh wait, that is impossible to do.

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
Ah, now i understand your POV. You have a version with a common typo in it ... see here ...

And every man that hath this hope in him prurifieth himself, even as he is impure.