NationStates Jolt Archive

Interestingly enough, not everyone will have a bible handy.
You can find one here (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0156&layout=&loc=John+3.1).

I'm afraid we've been left out.... :D
Um, no we haven't. The "undecided" option has been left out.

I disagree.
Mate, your freedom to express yourself is not in question. Your conduct is.


If that was the case, then this thread would not have gone past page one?Constructive (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=constructive) debate. Really. Look it up.


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.Which isn't what's been done, thus it is besides the point. The "God" deity & it's alleged actions & desires, have been asserted as universal truth, or fact if you prefer. This is either dishonest, or an intentional lie.

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.

And yet everyone knows that the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction.

Well he could've killed everyone.

That is the greatest excuse EVER!!!

Setting: A courtroom
Defendant: Yes your honour, I did brutally rape her. However, I could have killed her and I didn't so really you should all fall down on your knees and worship me for my mercy.

Judge: Good grief you're right! We will erect a statue in your honour and award you a medal for outstanding bravery and nobility!

Oil is the result of the drowned creatures and people.
That evidence of dead things (plants, actually), not a flood.

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.

Now thats way to literal for me.

And yet everyone knows that the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction.

Fiction based on a very few facts. Just like the Bible infact.

Um, no we haven't. The "undecided" option has been left out.
Point taken. :headbang: :D

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

I already conceded to canuck that I can't. Do you actually read posts in order to learn, or to act like an ass in response?

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

It's easy to do. If it's divinely inspired then there shouldn't be any absurdities or major errors in it, agreed?

Um, no we haven't. The "undecided" option has been left out.I wonder...

Given the true/false nature of this question, is it possible not to adopt a position?

- I'd say it's impossible not to operate under a definite assumption, at least on the social level, but on an individual, intellectual level? Hmm..

Do you pray/pay homage/whatever to your deity/deities on occation?

God will forgive anybody who truly repents.

Now this here is indeed true.

Oil is the result of the drowned creatures and people.
And hopes. :(

Oh wait, you probably have no idea what you're talking about - but i won't let that get in the way of a wistful allegory.

Now this here is indeed true.
So when are the two of y'all hookin' up? Otherwise, they're competition for you in the attention arena.

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.

We already know you don't believe in God and therefor, his messege of salvation through his son will not get through to you for your heart has been harder. It is my hope that you open your ears and hear the Good News of the Lord.

I wonder...

Given the true/false nature of this question, is it possible not to adopt a position?

- I'd say it's impossible not to operate under a definite assumption, at least on the social level, but on an individual, intellectual level? Hmm..

Do you pray/pay homage/whatever to your deity/deities on occation?
A question of truth is always a "yes/no" question ...but then so is a question of belief.

Every moment of my existence is homage to 'my deity/deities'.

Now this here is indeed true.

Oh, I couldn't prove my earlier statement so you singled it out, and here is a statement from you that you cannot prove. At least I acknowledged my own hypocrisy and apologised for it, this is just ignorance.

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.
Thank you.

Also, I said man as opposed to a man. Try not to take my words out of context.
I am sorry, I did misread your post and mindlessly put an "a" into your words.

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.
Since the Bible is the testimony of several authors, I do believe that anyone has the right to claim their written word as justification for their beliefs. The written words may or may not be true but that could be said on just about anything that has been written?

Um, no we haven't. The "undecided" option has been left out.
What, you didn't smilie this? This is a great one!!! *bows*
:D

What, you didn't smilie this? This is a great one!!! *bows*
:D
I meant to, I'm sorry. The thread is moving so fast, it's not worth going back and doing edits.

A question of truth is always a "yes/no" question ...but then so is a question of belief.

Every moment of my existence is homage to 'my deity/deities'.Right.. I forgot, you're spiritual in a not-very Christian-at-all sense. Sorry, been a long while since I debated this particular topic with you.

alrighty then, lemme try this...

i call upon god, humbly, to prove his existence.

i call upon lord zoltar, giant teal squid creator of all, to prove It exists.

nothing happened for either...

For some reason I find it hard to believe you called upon God in a sincere and humble manner through His son Jesus Christ. If you want to know the truth why not give it an honest try.

We already know you don't believe in God and therefor, his messege of salvation through his son will not get through to you for your heart has been harder. It is my hope that you open your ears and hear the Good News of the Lord.

Prove God has a message of salvation. Prove Jesus was his son. Prove the Lord bears good news. Then preach to me. You are a hypocrite, pointing out one thing I said that I can't prove (but then someone else made a valid counterpoint that you ignored), and you keep making such unprovable statements as in the quote above.

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

I believe what he is getting at is that when he repents his sins, he has nothing to fear on the day of judgement.

I meant to, I'm sorry. The thread is moving so fast, it's not worth going back and doing edits.
It is kinda scootin' along, isn't it?
:)

For some reason I find it hard to believe you called upon God in a sincere and humble manner through His son Jesus Christ. If you want to know the truth why not give it an honest try.I will, if you offer an honest prayer Freja, the Goddess of passion, love, beauty & fertility.

- Not that I believe it exists, but if you do, I'm pretty damn sure your life will change for the better :D

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.

Why?

pointing out one thing I said that I can't prove (but then someone else made a valid counterpoint that you ignored), and you keep making such unprovable statements as in the quote above.
The Corneliu Maneuver, Part I.
;)

I believe what he is getting at is that when he repents his sins, he has nothing to fear on the day of judgement.Are you sure? That wouldn't seem to go too well with his "Kill Michael Jackson" thing.

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

Apparently you still like to attack people who think and believe differently than you. Stop it.

Mate, your freedom to express yourself is not in question. Your conduct is.
Conduct is another matter. As far as expressing oneself, that is the poster's right?

Constructive (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=constructive) debate. Really. Look it up.
I understand constructive debate and I realize that there has been a lot of destructive debate on this thread.

Which isn't what's been done, thus it is besides the point. The "God" deity & it's alleged actions & desires, have been asserted as universal truth, or fact if you prefer. This is either dishonest, or an intentional lie.
Unless you can prove that the written words are false, then you cannot claim them to be "dishonest" or an "intentional lie".

The Corneliu Maneuver, Part I.
;)

Is that like the Picard Maneuver?

Since the Bible is the testimony of several authors, I do believe that anyone has the right to claim their written word as justification for their beliefs. The written words may or may not be true but that could be said on just about anything that has been written?

Once more, totally true. In fact, it could be claimed that no belief is justified other than belief in one's own existence, albeit still remaining ignorant of the form of existence taken (As highlighted by Descartes in Meditations). It is at this point that reliablism and coherentism must be used to ascertain justification. Probabilities (since it is true nothing can be stated as fact) about the world do contradict much of what thhe bible states, and even a few inductive arguments i.e. the omnipotence paradox could be used to deverify a couple of notions and conceptions. For justification, we must use whatever theories or ideas cohere the most with the world/plane/existence in which we allegedly live.

Good post Canuck.

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.

Can we lay off with the character attacks before a hell of a flame fest starts here? It would make the discussion smoother if names where not hurled.

I believe what he is getting at is that when he repents his sins, he has nothing to fear on the day of judgement.
A better way of dealing with this is to stop having irrational, unsubstantiated, manipulative fears altogether. That could be accomplished by living a good, conscious, responsible life, not really worrying about Pascal's bullsh*t. It's worth it either way.

You don't know what you're talking about here, so i'll let it go at that.

Do not tell me what I do and do not know what I am talking about Straughn. There has only been one global flood and it will not happen again.

Is that like the Picard Maneuver?
Not exactly... nor The Corbomite Maneuver ...let me think about it ...
there is the quick shifting of topics, so yeah, like that ...
giving the impression as well that the stance on something is one thing but apparently shifts at about light-speed factor to something else.
To the trained eye, a distinct impression of duplicity.
...
Well, some of it, i suspect.
;)

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

Then explain why fish fossels were found well about sea level where there has supposedly been no water?

Conduct is another matter. As far as expressing oneself, that is the poster's right?I have no idea what you're getting at.

Unless you can prove that the written words are false, then you cannot claim them to be "dishonest" or an "intentional lie".Wrong. If I assert that the world is made of Ymer, while I full well know that this is an idle claim, then I am being dishonest - either through over-eager mistake, or from a willful desire to twist the truth, in which case I'd be a lier.

Do not tell me what I do and do not know what I am talking about Straughn. There has only been one global flood and it will not happen again.
You don't know that at all. I implore you to substantiate that.
I don't say you're an idiot about a great number of things, or even that you are uneducated about.
I will say that if you are uncomfortable with the idea that another poster thinks you don't know what you're talking about as far as a deluge is concerned (and lo and behold, i ain't the only one), then i'll rephrase it ... you would be a liar then.
Is that better?

Can we lay off with the character attacks before a hell of a flame fest starts here? It would make the discussion smoother if names where not hurled.I trust you'll quit with the fire & brimstone then?

I wonder...

Given the true/false nature of this question, is it possible not to adopt a position?

- I'd say it's impossible not to operate under a definite assumption, at least on the social level, but on an individual, intellectual level? Hmm..

Do you pray/pay homage/whatever to your deity/deities on occation?
Yes it is. An agnostic believes that he cannot be 100% certain about whether God exists or not. It's very intellectual, when you come to think of it, because it's the most open-minded position. Obviously, I am not trying to imply that an Agnostic is necessarily more intelligent than a Theist or an Atheist, but he's certainly more open-minded about the issue of "God".

My God is any kind man who treats me with a smile; My Satan is any unkind man that treats me with contempt. I do not pray, I rather lend a hand. I do not pay homage to God, I pay homage to His work. I do not need to go to church, because I already live in His church.

Fiction based on a very few facts. Just like the Bible infact.

At least the Bible has archeological evidence.

Then explain why fish fossels were found well about sea level where there has supposedly been no water?
Posts. Links. Show the GLOBAL evidence. You don't have any.

Then explain why fish fossels were found well about sea level where there has supposedly been no water?

First tell us where these fossils were found.

I already conceded to canuck that I can't. Do you actually read posts in order to learn, or to act like an ass in response?

I'm just reading through this thread and responding to posts. I had to start back in the early 270s I believe so it takes awhile to get over here. Relax dog.

At least the Bible has archeological evidence.
Yes, at the very least, there is a portion of usable archeological evidence from the Bible.

First tell us where these fossils were found.

There's a lot of hype about fossils, when really there just evidence that radio carbon dating doesn't work.

At least the Bible has archeological evidence.

Some of the cities named in the Bible were real.

All of the cities named in the DaVinci Code were real.

Current Score
Bible 0
DaVinci Code 1

Then explain why fish fossels were found well about sea level where there has supposedly been no water?

Look, someone doesn't know anything about plate tectonics...

At least the Bible has archeological evidence.

I could make so many puns about it being a fossil or a remnant of times gone by... Meh, laziness prevails.

I'm just reading through this thread and responding to posts. I had to start back in the early 270s I believe so it takes awhile to get over here. Relax dog.
That's what i was talking about earlier. And the sun's coming up again, what a coinky! ;)
BTW, that's a hint. Have fun.

So when are the two of y'all hookin' up? Otherwise, they're competition for you in the attention arena.

Sorry dude, but he's a tad to literal even for me. And truth be told, I am already in a relationship, or I should say soon will be.

I wait for the day when they find the first page of the bible, reading
My Dearest Evelyn, all that follows is a work of pure fiction.
Also, I have promised several religious people that if i meet God i will headbutt the bugger. Same goes for Satan. :headbang:

There's a lot of hype about fossils, when really there just evidence that radio carbon dating doesn't work.
You're slow on the take on this topic too. I'm sensing a pattern.

Oh, I couldn't prove my earlier statement so you singled it out, and here is a statement from you that you cannot prove. At least I acknowledged my own hypocrisy and apologised for it, this is just ignorance.

I already do know that it is true so what should I apologize for?

There's a lot of hype about fossils, when really there just evidence that radio carbon dating doesn't work.

Because you're new to the thread I'll go easy on you this time.

Radio carbon dating doesn't work for VERY OLD things becaue its half-life is too low. For very old things such as dinosaur fossils we use isotopes such as Uranium 238 which have far longer half-lives.

Look, someone doesn't know anything about plate tectonics...
:eek:
*gasp*
*gasp*
Plate tectonics doesn't seem to factor well with "static earth".
Could have something to do with that mentality as well?

I trust you'll quit with the fire & brimstone then?

Sorry but that made me think of Dogma and threads like these need a bit of comic relief once in a while.....

That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter," that's an indictment of organized religion. The Walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buda, or with his tusks, the Hindu elephant god Lord Ganesha. Now, that takes care of your Eastern religions. Now, the Carpenter, which is obviously a reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son. He represents the Western religions. Now, in the poem, what do they do? What do they do? They dup all these oysters into following them, and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en mass. Now, I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths, based on mythological figures insures the destruction of ones inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions, by inhibiting our decisions, out of, out of fear of some intangible parent figure that shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says, "Do it . . . do it and I'll fu**in' spank you!" -Loki/Matt Damon

Sorry.

There's a lot of hype about fossils, when really there just evidence that radio carbon dating doesn't work.

Such luck then that carbon dating is not used for fossils on this timescale... :rolleyes:

So leave the judging to God, instead of trying to usurp His court.
I believe what he is getting at is that when he repents his sins, he has nothing to fear on the day of judgement.
I rather believe that everyone trying to usurp God's throne in life, will have much to fear on their death bed...

True, carbon's half life is only 5730 years and the world is a couple of thousand years older than that.

True, carbon's half life is only 5730 years and the world is a couple of thousand years older than that. While Uraniums supposed half life is '4468000000 years' which biblically is impossible.

True, carbon's half life is only 5730 years and the world is a couple of thousand years older than that. While Uraniums supposed half life is4468000000 years .

True, carbon's half life is only 5730 years and the world is a couple of thousand years older than that. While Uraniums supposed half life is4468000000 years .

Yes it is. An agnostic believes that he cannot be 100% certain about whether God exists or not. It's very intellectual, when you come to think of it, because it's the most open-minded position. Obviously, I am not trying to imply that an Agnostic is necessarily more intelligent than a Theist or an Atheist, but he's certainly more open-minded about the issue of "God".To be agnostic (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic) about something, is to assume that definite knowledge about X is unobtainable, either presently, or indefinetly.

I'm every bit as agnostic as you, as knowledge of the supernatural is a logical impossibility. That doesn't make me religious however. I just cannot exclude the possibility of the supernatural with 100% certainty.

The religious friends I have, are all agnostics as well, and just like me, consider all non-agnostic stances to be the hight of arrogance.My God is any kind man who treats me with a smile; My Satan is any unkind man that treats me with contempt. I do not pray, I rather lend a hand. I do not pay homage to God, I pay homage to His work. I do not need to go to church, because I already live in His church.Sounds nice enough :)

But you do profess faith, so you're not really undecided. You're an agnostic theist.

Prove God has a message of salvation. Prove Jesus was his son. Prove the Lord bears good news. Then preach to me. You are a hypocrite, pointing out one thing I said that I can't prove (but then someone else made a valid counterpoint that you ignored), and you keep making such unprovable statements as in the quote above.

Prove that he isnt

Prove that he isnt

Proof lies in the responsibility of the Prover, not the Disprover.

True, carbon's half life is only 5730 years and the world is a couple of thousand years older than that. While Uraniums supposed half life is4468000000 years .

The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

-Some bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 2000 BCE. One, labeled "Methuselah" germinated in 2726 BCE. This ocurred centuries before the date that conservative Christians assign to the Noahic flood. But their tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees; this shows that the latter germinated about 6000 BCE, which predates the year 4004 BCE by 2 millennia.

-In the Green River there are varves (millions of annual layers of sediment) laid down over the past 20 million years

-During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 millennia made by many creation scientists.

-Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice.

Taken from religoustolerance.org

Proof lies in the responsibility of the Prover, not the Disprover.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Corneliu's lord, Amen.

Prove that he isnt

You know Corneliu, I'm beginning to doubt your claim that you're majoring in history. I'm also studying history and there is a great emphasis on being able to construct a reasoned argument supported by evidence. I have yet to see you do anything of the kind, instead you make stupid replies like the one above. This leads me to suspect that you're incapable of actually making a proper argument.

The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.No it's all wrong. Evil scientiststs lieses! The Bible is true so yous wrong! :mad:

- Sorry, but I just couldn't resist.

Not exactly... nor The Corbomite Maneuver ...let me think about it ...
there is the quick shifting of topics, so yeah, like that ...
giving the impression as well that the stance on something is one thing but apparently shifts at about light-speed factor to something else.
To the trained eye, a distinct impression of duplicity.
...
Well, some of it, i suspect.
;)

I bow to your Star Trek knowledge and ability to use it in a thread.

Sorry but that made me think of Dogma and threads like these need a bit of comic relief once in a while.....

That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter," that's an indictment of organized religion. The Walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buda, or with his tusks, the Hindu elephant god Lord Ganesha. Now, that takes care of your Eastern religions. Now, the Carpenter, which is obviously a reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son. He represents the Western religions. Now, in the poem, what do they do? What do they do? They dup all these oysters into following them, and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en mass. Now, I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths, based on mythological figures insures the destruction of ones inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions, by inhibiting our decisions, out of, out of fear of some intangible parent figure that shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says, "Do it . . . do it and I'll fu**in' spank you!" -Loki/Matt Damon

Sorry.
No apologies necessary. Some of the humour of the other posters here represents a constituency not dissimilar to The Aristocrats. ;)

EDIT: I think i read earlier on this behemoth of a thread that Corneliu had something to do with Dogma, as Alanis Morrisette's stand in. Don't quote me on it though ;)

True, carbon's half life is only 5730 years and the world is a couple of thousand years older than that. While Uraniums supposed half life is '4468000000 years' which biblically is impossible.

Such luck then that what is "biblically impossible" has nothing to do with reality, or the fact that the Earth is billions of years old.

I bow to your Star Trek knowledge and ability to use it in a thread.
You mean those 24 years in the basement have finally paid off? WooT!!!

*dances his weasel dance*

Oh, btw - that's gonna have to go on the next sig round. :)

No it's all wrong. Evil scientiststs lieses! The Bible is true so yous wrong! :mad:

- Sorry, but I just couldn't resist.

Very Gollumesque. :)

*offers cookie*

Such luck then that what is "biblically impossible" has nothing to do with reality, or the fact that the Earth is billions of years old.

It would be a good name for a band, though.

It would be a good name for a band, though.
Dave Barry in da house!
:D

The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

-Some bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 2000 BCE. One, labeled "Methuselah" germinated in 2726 BCE. This ocurred centuries before the date that conservative Christians assign to the Noahic flood. But their tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees; this shows that the latter germinated about 6000 BCE, which predates the year 4004 BCE by 2 millennia.

-In the Green River there are varves (millions of annual layers of sediment) laid down over the past 20 million years

-During each springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake. Here, they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The result are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers; they have been accumulating since about 43,000 BCE. This is far beyond the estimates of 6 to 10 millennia made by many creation scientists.

-Ice core samples have been taken in Greenland that show 40,000 annual layers of ice.

Taken from religoustolerance.org

I'm sure Satan just put all that scientifically-gathered and proven evidence there to test the faith of the faithful.


Or something.

The religious friends I have, are all agnostics as well, and just like me, consider all non-agnostic stances to be the hight of arrogance.Sounds nice enough :)
What's more comforting than placing yourself in a position that is willing to listen to both sides of an argument than cannot be "won" in life?

But you do profess faith, so you're not really undecided. You're an agnostic theist.
It's an understandable misjudgement... :D I can honestly tell you that I am more an agnostic atheist than theist (I was atheist all my life, until recently). I do follow Jesus but only from a "human" perspective, because I believe that if every men and woman were like Jesus, we would not be living in the hell we've made out of Earth.

p.s. I also follow Zen Buddhism...

I'm sure Satan just put all that scientifically-gathered and proven evidence there to test the faith of the faithful.

Or something.

Oh, I wouldn't put it past him. He's a wily bugger, that boogeyman.

I wait for the day when they find the first page of the bible, reading
My Dearest Evelyn, all that follows is a work of pure fiction.
Also, I have promised several religious people that if i meet God i will headbutt the bugger. Same goes for Satan. :headbang:
My view is that you meet them every day... So start banging... :headbang: :D

Oh, I wouldn't put it past him. He's a wily bugger, that boogeyman.Ah no. Though I'm a vile boogeyman, I'm neither wily nor terribly Satanic. But hey, honest misunderstanding ;)

I'm sure Satan just put all that scientifically-gathered and proven evidence there to test the faith of the faithful.


Or something.
Bob: Uh... now Satan, I want make sure that we get two coats of wax this time. Not just one.
Satan: Just finishing up the second coat now.
Bob: Now Satan, don't con me!
Satan: I'm sorry, Mr. Dobbs. I meant I was just starting on the second coat.
Bob: Ahh... Satan. What a character. Always trying to get away with something. I've had to stay on top of Satan ever since Parochial School.

I'm sure Satan just put all that scientifically-gathered and proven evidence there to test the faith of the faithful.
Or something.
The only other option is that he wrote the bible instead... :eek:

Bob: Uh... now Satan, I want make sure that we get two coats of wax this time. Not just one.
Satan: Just finishing up the second coat now.
Bob: Now Satan, don't con me!
Satan: I'm sorry, Mr. Dobbs. I meant I was just starting on the second coat.
Bob: Ahh... Satan. What a character. Always trying to get away with something. I've had to stay on top of Satan ever since Parochial School.


If you havent already, you should read I, Lucifer. You'd get a kick out of it.....so would you Fass. I highly recommend it. And no people I'm not a "devil worshipper". I'm just not afraid to read controversial material. Especially when it's well written,exceptionally witty and humorous.

If you havent already, you should read I, Lucifer. You'd get a kick out of it.....so would you Fass. I highly recommend it. And no people I'm not a "devil worshipper". I'm just not afraid to read controversial material. Especially when it's well written,exceptionally witty and humorous.
Sage advice, then (or another spice, just as nice)?
Alright, i shall. *bows*

If you havent already, you should read I, Lucifer. You'd get a kick out of it.....so would you Fass. I highly recommend it. And no people I'm not a "devil worshipper". I'm just not afraid to read controversial material. Especially when it's well written,exceptionally witty and humorous.Speaking of fun religious wank, never forget the Principia Discordia (http://fnord.org/html/principia.html)

Fnord!

Speaking of fun religious wank, never forget the Principia Discordia (http://fnord.org/html/principia.html)

Fnord!
Fnord INDEED.

*starts passing out The Golden Apple*

They have an excellent treatise on conversion, btw.

Sage advice, then (or another spice, just as nice)?
Alright, i shall. *bows*


Let me know when you finish it. I'd love to hear what you think of it.

this thread has clearly gone on far too long

this thread has clearly gone on far too long
What didn't you catch (about 84 pages ago) about this being
The Thread That Never Ends?

this thread has clearly gone on far too longYou think? :p

Let me know when you finish it. I'd love to hear what you think of it.
M'kay! If the library doesn't have it and i don't find it in copiousness on the 'net, it will take me a couple of weeks to procure it.

this thread has clearly gone on far too long
I actually think the fun only just started... :D

M'kay! If the library doesn't have it and i don't find it in copiousness on the 'net, it will take me a couple of weeks to procure it.If you stumble across a free source, I'd appreciate it if you'd share :)

If you stumble across a free source, I'd appreciate it if you'd share :)
No problemo.
I cliffnote everything anyway - much to the chagrin of people who lend me their ear in the first place ;)

If you stumble across a free source, I'd appreciate it if you'd share :)


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802140149/002-1012025-8192054?v=glance&n=283155


They also have some used copies for sale for around $8. It's worth it I promise. The library in my town did not carry it, but the next town over did, so it's entirely possible it could be in your library.

Urg sorry for the hijack.....

Cheers, both of you :)

Cheers, both of you :)
Salud. *bows*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink39.gif

Night/day, folks. I have about 3 hrs to sleep now. *bows*
Fun arguing with y'all too.

Cheers, both of you :)
Here's another something (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006GAOBI/qid=1148913318/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6996531-6304837?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130) you may like...

Here's another something (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006GAOBI/qid=1148913318/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6996531-6304837?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130) you may like...Hehe, seen it already. The girlfriend loves it. I was mostly fascinated with the 6' bunny.

Hehe, seen it already. The girlfriend loves it. I was mostly fascinated with the 6' bunny.
God is a bunny rabbit... :D Just not sure about His height...

God is a bunny rabbit... :D Just not sure about his height...A dead bunny, no less :p

Hehe, seen it already. The girlfriend loves it. I was mostly fascinated with the 6' bunny.
I never thought I would EVER like a movie starring Patrick Swayze again (even if in a secondary role)... :D They certainly gave him the perfect part... hehehe

Fnord!
:eek:

Fnord


This thread scares me on so many levels...

:eek: Fnord
This thread scares me on so many levels...
Care to share your worries?

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

I love this letter:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Christianity developed a killer marketing ploy - The Catholic [Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou(from neuter genitive of holos, whole. See sol- in Indo-European Roots).] Church, The One True Religion (TM), sin and salvation through a priesthood of divinely annointed men providing for complete control of the populace, taxation...

Contemporary obsession with the western hemisphere (catalyzed by the USA's killer marketing tactic: A place where everyman can raise himself up from the gutter into opulence and wealth [feeding the corporate machine]) often has us forgetting that Christianity isn't the only religion or necessarily The One True Religion (TM), and doesn't have a majority of the earth's populace indoctrinated. Religious tolerance is the only acceptable solution, with the end of agressive marketing and scare tactics leading to sensible proselytizing. Threatening people into ascribing to any belief system crafts a congregation of unwilling believers, persisting on a level where they comply simply to avoid a theorized punishment.

If you want to witness a religion that truly teaches and practices Love, try Sufism.

Succor,

Castrensis

Now can I see a link to this "letter" HOOR?

Care to share your worries?
I'd better not... I don't want to name names.
(THEY might be listening, you know!)

And I really think that I should just stay the hell away from getting involved here. No good can come of this...

Thelema, Corneliu.

I saved this letter as a text file when I received it back in 2000, although the source is unimportant. Please take your bible off the shelf (or your bedside stand) and turn to Leviticus...look up the passages yourself. In case you didn't get the point of the letter, it makes the statement: If you appeal to the book to condemn one behaviour you must accept every behavioural regulation contained therein. To do anything else degrades the coherence of the system and makes you look a little silly, too.

I'm certain if you'll use the resources at your disposal (i.e. Google) and search for Leviticus Dr. Laura Letter you'll find a webpage that archived the letter. I'm not certain what you hope to accomplish by verifying authorship. Look it up, see it for yourself, then make a choice.

It's your life...keep your nose out of mine.

Agape,
Castrensis

Now can I see a link to this "letter" HOOR?

Here ya go

The "letter" to Dr. Laura may or may not have actually been sent to her, but in any case it is best read as an essay offering a counter to the "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so" argument. Though it purports to be addressed to just one person (Dr. Laura), it is clearly meant for a general audience. The authorship of the letter is still a bit of a mystery, although the name "Kent Ashcraft" (or "J. Kent Ashcraft") keeps coming up.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

So its unconfirmed if it was sent or not. Figures.

So its unconfirmed if it was sent or not. Figures.
Yup, but that wasn't the point. It doesn't matter if it was sent or if it was an open letter published in a newspaper or whatever.

The letter stands on its own merits and arguements.

Yup, but that wasn't the point. It doesn't matter if it was sent or if it was an open letter published in a newspaper or whatever.

The letter stands on its own merits and arguements.

Here's another question for ya. Why didn't the author use his/her real name?

Here's another question for ya. Why didn't the author use his/her real name?

Because it doesn't matter who wrote it. No one is certain who the authors of the four gospels that begin the New Testament are, yet people don't care.

The important thing is the subject of the letter. Why should we use one Old Testament law to justify degrading homosexuals and conviently ignore the rest?

Here's another question for ya. Why didn't the author use his/her real name?

What is your purpose in verifying authorship?

Because it doesn't matter who wrote it. No one is certain who the authors of the four gospels that begin the New Testament are, yet people don't care.

The important thing is the subject of the letter. Why should we use one Old Testament law to justify degrading homosexuals and conviently ignore the rest?

It matters to me if I'm going to rail against him.

What is your purpose in verifying authorship?

I want to know who wrote it because who ever did, has one hell of a spur up his/her butt.

It matters to me if I'm going to rail against him.

So long as his argument is shattered, what does it matter who he is? Unless you're thinking of refuting the argument by attacking the original author, it shouldn't matter.

More than likely, it was a group effort.

So long as his argument is shattered, what does it matter who he is? Unless you're thinking of refuting the argument by attacking the original author, it shouldn't matter.

Meh..I guess your right.

Here's another question for ya. Why didn't the author use his/her real name?
Don't know, and I believe it to be irrelevant. As I said, the letter stands on it's own.

It matters to me if I'm going to rail against him.

Then by all means post your refutation here! I'm open to other perspectives and would be interested in how you overcome this contradiction in your faith.

93,
Castrensis

geez ruff, death sucks. it sucks big time. its not like you wont mourn every time someone you love dies no matter how or when.

some people go early, some live a long long time. in the end, everyone dies. my father in law told me that when his mother died at age 90 he was as sad as when his daughter died at age 6.

my point is that "god" wasnt being particularily cruel to your friend. she had a beautiful life for as long as she lived. she overcame adversity, she had a good family, she maintained her good spirits even as she was dying. she still inspires people even after she is gone. as the song on the radio says "thats a life you can hang your hat on".

god doesnt promise a life without pain. he doesnt say that if you believe in him and follow his commandments he'll make all your troubles go away.

he promises that if you ask, he'll help you get through it and that someday you will be brought to a more perfect existance where, in THAT life, there is no trouble and you will be reunited with those you have lost.

isnt that what your friend wanted for you?

well said my friend well said

I think there is a God.

So its unconfirmed if it was sent or not. Figures.

Which is irrelevent, surely?

I think there is a God.

now then, without mentioning the bible as proof, proof is in our very existence, without mentioning "thats just what i believe", why?

is there an answer? is there maybe a genetic predisposition to blind faith?

Here's another question for ya. Why didn't the author use his/her real name?
Because if I knew who did it, I would slit that little thing's throat and disembowel it, before forcing it to eat its own bowels. As you can imagine, it would be extremely painful and difficult to swallow your own bowels with a slit throat. That's why they didn't name that damned little thing...

Since the Bible is the testimony of several authors, I do believe that anyone has the right to claim their written word as justification for their beliefs. The written words may or may not be true but that could be said on just about anything that has been written?

Is the same true of other written words, then?

Is the scripture of non-christian religions, even religions that teach things completely different from Christianity, equally as justified? If not, why not?
Can any written words that may or not be true be used to justify a belief? Are not all written beliefs thus equally justified, and thus the bible no more justified than any other scripture?

Do you believe the bible may or may not be true, or do you believe it is entirely true? Partially true?

You've said on this thread that nobody can know The Truth.

So if you are asked if Jesus is The Truth, you would have to say you don't know, yes?

CanuckHeaven, these are questions about things you've said on this thread. If you don't want to reply to them, say so, and we'll leave it be. You've repeatedly ignored my invitiation to a new thread wherein I would address the things you said you wanted to discuss with me if you would address my questions as well, unless you just haven't seen the invitation. I extend it again.

If you don't want to discuss it anymore, say so, and I'll leave it be, although
I find it concerning that you won't even answer whether you believe the bible is completely true, which I would think is central to the thread topic of faith in god (or in this case, the biblical version of God, which you evidently may or may not believe in, we can't know until you answer the question).

I've answered for you that I don't believe the bible to be true. I can't prove that the bible is untrue any more than I can prove that the Koran, the Bagvadghita, or the Buddhist texs are untrue. But as they are all equally unprovable, the fact that they are unprovable as true or false doesn't support any of them over the others.

But if I believed in one of them, I'd be prepared to discuss the implications.

I'm only asking for what you believe. Why can you not directly answer?
Please just say whether you believe the bible to be true, without falsehood, so we can then discuss the implications of that. If you can't or won't, say so.

Anyway, if your answer is "drop it" or "I don't want to talk about it with you anymore", fine, but say so if it is, please.

There were three angels who fell from the "grace of heaven". They were Lucifer, Satanail (Satan) and possibly Samael. So how can two (possibly three) angels suddenly turn evil, who/what tempted them?

Leviticus 18:22 Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. they must both beput to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

Where are you getting this stuff about menstruating woman with leviticus 20 verse 13?

Doesn't explain why being gay is a sin. YOU'RE BORN WITH IT, so some people can't help being gay, it's in your genes. And the word Capital offense sounds a little too modern

I do it every day. It has no weaknesses for demonstrating truth seeing as it is the ONLY way to demonstrate truth.

From your perspective. And from the perspective of certain others quoting from their religion's holy text is the only way to demonstrate truth.

Why should I choose one over the other? From what I can see, many of both the religious and the rationalists are so locked within their own systems that they couldn't possibly consider anything else. Everything they see is colored by religion or reason, both of which I find to be seriously flawed systems. I have a bit of a dilemma, you see. While I enjoy and appreciate both, neither satisfies me completely, and neither is really more satisfying than the other.

Truth is absolute. Logic is ONE WAY of finding it. By assuming that there is a different way and reaching a contradiction, you can prove that there are NO other ways.

But you can only prove this within the system of logic itself. And some religious folks can only prove the truth of their beliefs with their own belief system. Sorry, not seeing that you're ahead on points here.

Because it is a proof, this is absolute truth, like it or not.

How wonderfully dogmatic in your insistence you are. And this is coming from a Catholic who is quite familiar with dogmatic statements. ;)

The point is that using your method of finding truth, one person can find that "God exists" is truth. This is absolute. God can not possible not exist if it is truth that he does exist. Truth remains truth irrespective of whether a person knows it. But if two people discover two truths that are contradictory, they aren't truths.

I suspect that proposing to you that paradoxes may indeed be true would be useless at this point, though I think it would be a fascinating question to discuss.

You have a hand for wishes and a hand for sh*t .... which one do you feel will fill faster? Hmmm?

Depends on what I've eaten recently. :D

Apply the same principle after giving it some thought.

Some thought? I generally give things considerably more thought than some, and the dilemma you pose is an old and familiar one.

<snip>
I suspect that proposing to you that paradoxes may indeed be true would be useless at this point, though I think it would be a fascinating question to discuss.
My personal suspicion is that certain paradoxes must hold true for us to be here.

That, or I'm too stupid to understand it all, which is of course possible.

Hi Peeps,

I've come back to have another stab at the debate now I'm a bit more awake. Sorry if I cover old ground - I've been struggling to catch up but I'm still about 15 pages behind being quite a slow reader.

Anyway, there's so much I want to address and so many different people I want to reply to - so hopefully I can keep all this coherant.

So, I've been reading your comments and a few things have really jumped out at me:

God as a murderous, evil being destroying those of mankind who would care to live differently to his plan.
God as an uncarring God willing to let tragedy afflict his creation.
God as a powerless or inept being unable to look after his own.
The Bible being self contradictory.
The Bible as a tool of oppression and/or control
Faith as little or nothing to logic
Debating practices and the assumption that holding a different opinion on how to debate makes an individual uneducated and out of their depth.


I'm not sure if I'll get round to all this, but let's take a stab at it (and most likely not in that order):

I've read an argument here about how an athiest might suppose a position of a thiest in order to reach a conlcusion regarding a matter of faith. I can see why this would seem sensible, but also acknowledge it's failing. In its favour, the technique under other circumstances ought to allow you to disembark from your position and see the opposing position as a more abstract and objective subject. It creates an arena of simplified clarity in order to play the scenario to a logical conclusion within a kind of mind-game. It's absolutely feasible under most circumstances. Its drawback is that if you cannot totally empathise with the oppositions standpoint, how can you fairly conclude anything reasonable about your opponents position?

Therein is the problem of relying 100% on your presented education and not allowing scope for independant thought. I know those keen to fight about....well....anything it seems, will gleefully declare that I decry education. Please don't take these words out of context. Of course education is important. But so is independant thought. There are unique circumstances where the status quo needs to be re-examined in favour of finding a more sensitive method of (in this case) debate.

The issue I'm sliding around is that a debate about having faith in God is very sticky. As we address the discussion as a debate, it is felt that 'proof' must be presented. Will a wholly logical opponent accept personal experience as 'proof'? Of course not! Proof needs to be an account that all those present can experience themselves. It needs to be a fact or unbiassed account of a fact. Intrapersonal experience (as the athiest would view it, Extrapersonal experience as the believer sees it) is clearly inadmissable in these terms. So how can a logical athiest debator ever understand their oppositions position, and how can the believer ever really convince the athiest of any validity of his/her experieces?

Let's take another angle:
You are the sole witness of an event. The event has left no physical evidence of occurring. You know it to be true. The rest of the world refuses to believe you as your are but one witness and there is no tangible evidence relating to your description of the alleged event. Does that mean the event never occurred? Curb your cynicism and sarcasm for a moment. Can you accept that a fact may exist without evidence? You may be privy to the fact and yet be disbelieved. The fact remains whether others wish to believe in it or not.

As has been stated more than once in this post, No one has PROVEN that God exists. Neither has anyone PROVEN that he does not. That certainly does not mean you must believe, but it would be a fair step I think for the staunch athiests among you to take a step toward agnostic, if only on those grounds.

Certainly, utilizing logic games you can again point out that your Teal Squid and Pink Unicorn can't be disproven and are therefore also worthy of worship. There is a huge oversight here though. This is that neither the Squid nor the Unicorn have any true followers. This is not an argument toward believers making a God, but more that of a God inspiring followers to worship. This still very simplified format gives rise to the accemptance of pluralism...but that's another slightly different subject, and if anyone's really interested, I'll give you my take on that either here or privately. For now, it can wait.

In personal terms, the Pink Unicorn and the Teal Squid have not touched my life and therefore I do not believe in them. God has (though asking me to prove it at this juncture is, I hope you realise, fruitless for the reasons covered above).

I know it's labouring the point, but it helps me in a narrative sense to get back on track: Since we're all so keen here on utilizing scientific discoveries to abolish religious notions, consider something that has been been discovered by man and yet has always been there, doing it's job. Something like Gravity, for example. Before Newton's discovery, did gravity exist? Naturally, it did. It was there as a fact. It was not seeking to be discovered and neither was it hidden deviously from us. It just was. But it took a new paradigm to recognise it.

Imagine you were Newton under the fabled apple tree. You get clocked by an apple, and start to get excited as a new paradigm opens up to you. Imagine too that you ran indoors and grabbed your house keeper and said "I've just discovered this force called gravity.....LOOK:" you hold aloft the apple and let it go. It drops. The following sound is that of this now rather bruised apple bouncing on the floor followed by a moment's silence. You look into the unimpressed eyes of your house keeper before she bustles away mumbling "Bloody fool! It fell! what did he expect? I could have told that'd happen....."

In a parallel sense, faith is a kind of paradigm. The only way to really understand what it is and why it's important is to have an experience beyond your accepted reality - perhaps in this case, beyond physicall proof - such as a sense of God's guidance or a change within yourself thet defies explanation. I know it sounds terribly mysticall, but then that is perhaps what it is: mystical. Now that you've had your awakening to a different kind of existence...... how do you explain to your mates that you're pretty sure there might actually be a God?

And IF you ever find yourself in that position, you must remember that the burden of proof is not upon you. Accept for a moment, all you athiests, that my position is correct in the time honoured debating method ;-) You now KNOW in your heart and mind that there is a God. Your experiences may have shown you that he wants a relationship with you and wants you to be a part of his kingdom. Now you know this to be true, it is beyond question. You know the ground is beneath you, you know the sky is blue, you know fire is hot and you know God is with you. If you KNOW it, what further proof do you need? From here on in it's about cultivating your relationship with God.

OK, you can stop pretending now (if you wish) and return to your Godless existence. For a moment though, wasn't that interesting? For a moment, you had a vague idea of what it's like to have faith. Perhaps you can appreciate why, when pressed for evidence, a Christian will stumble and reach for the Bible. If you want evidence, we're back to things that are written down and compared to experiencing faith, text just wont cut the mustard. Unless God sees your reading of the Bible as an opportunity to speak to you through the text (again, please avoid the literal sense of direct communication. If this needs further explanation, please ask!!).

So, to round off this bit of my rant, DEBATE is not an ideal place to discuss faith. The athiest standpoint is disadvantaged as there is most likely a lack of "relevant" experience, and the christian is disadvantaged by a lack of a certain desired form of evidence.

---

What about this talk of God being evil or inept? I was a little disturbed by the idea when put in the context of reasoning God to be malevolent or uncarring because he would either allow or SEND you to burn in hell because you did not believe in him.

While I suspect this was an amount of baiting, I also find the notion disturbing as it is utterly contra to both my beliefs and experience of God.

I wish to talk at this moment about the nature of god as my feeble mortal mind can comprehend it. I will attempt to address the issues that have been raised about the bloodier parts of the Bible later.

I was raised as a christian. That's why I attribute part of my belief systems to conditioning. But that's not as bad as it sounds - we are conditioned by our upbringing and education, so we are all burdenned by the ideas and dogmas of our peers to one extent or another.

However, I reached an age when I asked lots of questions of my faith; many like the ones aired here. I accepted God as omnipotent and omniscient. If God knows all, why would he allow us to go through the suffering we endure in life? Why did he go ahead with his creation knowing the misfortune that so many would have to suffer, and knowing he would be creating a breeding ground for the evil he found so abhorent? And this lead to a crisis of faith. With a bit of church hopping and some changes in my life - not least of all becoming a father, I began to find enough answer to these questions.

I'll let you in on a gross little secret. If you are constipated and enjoy the peace, quiet and privacy of the bathroom - you'll find you have alot of time to sit and mull ideas over. And I did. I've been quite a Trekky at times and you get thinking about the themes and pseudo-science raised there and contemplate time travel and other fairly abstract notions about time and space and such like and I would end up with some peculiar theories and ideas for books I want to write and so forth. I also ended up with ways back into my faith - even if they are "lies-to-children".

The more I thought about it, the more I realised that God is far greater and more powerful than the dimensions we occupy and the energy and matter within it. I came to realise that with or without my silly theories, I had to accept that I did not and cannot understand God because there is NO frame of reference. I felt that I could not understand his motives for creating the universe and all that constitutes it, and for a time this was a problem for me as I couldn't relate to God.

As time went on, I'd heard several ministers refer to our relationship with God as that of a child to a very wise father. But it was not until I became a parent that I was able to underestand this properly. And I believe it is really one of the best annalogies we have for God today.

I've gone over this in an earlier post - but let's see if I can do it justice here:
As a parent, we have choices to make. On this earth, the trouble is that everyone is an expert and wants to tell you where you're going wrong. God, however, in his perfection (do you want me to come back to this some time?) is without that problem.... lucky him! Do you control your child or encourage their individuality? Do you encourage them to develope quickly if they are keen or let them work things out on their own? Do you punish your child when they are naughty or let them run amok so as not to stifle their creativity? Do you scold your child? Smack when necessary? Send to the corner or their bedroom? Do you make your child eat what's good for them or give them what they want because at least you know they're eating enough that way?

As a parent, you grow to know your child and your child grows to know you. Unless the situation is clearly abusive, you know that each parent is raising their child in a way that best fits their unique relationship. I know that's unpopular, and some parents seem better at cultivating that relationship than others so it's not that simple, but I believe through my observation that this is true.

God, though the same being has had different eras in history. You might argue that a society makes God into whatever they need him to be, but I think it is more the other way about. God is to us what we need him to be. Authoritarian? Tolerant? Strict? Even handed? God certainly became much more accessible to human kind when he came to Earth in the form of his son. He experienced a life with us. Not only is he GOD but he is also man. I intend returning to this in due course as I have infact jumped ahead.

What I want to say here is that God gave us free will. If we were all powerful and wished to create subjects to rule over, would we be so brave as to let our subjects decide for themselves whether they loved us or not? God gave us this great gift - the FREEDOM! With every freedom comes responsibility. If we are to have free will, then we must be responsible for the choices we make. Accept the consequences. This applies to disobeying as in the original sin, and to abandoning God - choosing to live without him. As a parent, I can watch my daughter play and I can see her bringing herself close to harm. It doesn't matter how many times you tell her to stay away from this or that, she still goes to it....she's a kid!! but sometimes you have to let them see the consequence of their action (as long as it's not too harsh) in order for them to learn why Mummy and Daddy say not to do it. You have to give them freedom.

As my little girl becomes less little, there will be all kinds of temptation in her life. She may be presented with the opportunity to start taking drugs or enter into casual sex or...well... that's in the future and I've got enough to deal with right now. What am I mean to do? Follow her? Send a unic to be her chaperone? Of course not - aside from the impracticality, she has free will and I would be wrong not to let her go and make her own mistakes or be brave and do the right thing. As her parent, I will be there to guide her. When she makes her mistakes, I cannot take the consequences away - and if I could, would it be right to? Surely she must learn from them. And, though I may be saddenned by her at times, I will always love her and will always be there for her, too. That is unconditional. She will also make me proud by her actions and strengths.

Do I really need to spell out the parallel between my Daughter and I and God and we, his children? I trust not.

But to readdress God SENDING you to hell. Certainly not. God has given you the opportunity to make up your mind. He will love you no matter what, but you are responsible for your actions. And through your actions you have willed the matter out of his hands. (I know we have an omnipotence issue here again - but again, if you want, we'll talk about that later) When you reach judgement, will you be able to claim that you never had the opportunity to know him? Look at where you all are! Look at the number of times people have said to you that if you will it, you can know God and be saved from this potential damnation.

This is all very focussed on personal gain though, I feel. Be good and go to heaven...and there's the insentive. Often, that's why weak christians come across as weak christians. Focus on the now!! Lead by example! Demonstrate Gods Kingdom here on earth.

Anyway, I can feel those sulky unimpressed house keeper eyes boring into me.

In terms of the passages in the Bible that demonstrate God's wrath... God can't be angry? He's had plenty of reason to be! You cannot objectively judge God without understanding him. We are unable to understand God and certainly in terms of a God to be feared. God in this era, I can get soem kind of naive handle on by comparison to a parent. But God of the ancient eras....well, as I've admitted - I'm not at all well read in the Bible and so cannot comment in detail.....but really we come back to faith. Part of faith is accepting that we do not have all the answers. Another part, is knowing that we do not need the answers in order to have that relationship with God.

Sorry - I know that's all a bit weak.....but there is my weakness - not enough reading into the book central to my faith. Again, if anyone's really interested why, then sure, we'll talk, but just accept that I'm not really the best person to field that one.

A very good book that covers many of the topics I'm stabbing around at here and others, if you're interested in a fresh perspective is "A New Kind Of Christian" by Brian D McLaren. I'd recommend it to anyone genuinely interested in teh issue of faith and perceived religious inconsistencies.

Lastly - I can only really enter this as a bit of a footnote, really, is my opinion about the Bible.

There seem to be any number of you who for me are quite intimidating as you seem to have done your homework regarding the nature of the Bible. But I'm also reading alot of messages that make claims like it was written by one individual or I'm reading messages that indicate that it's all written as prose etc. I just want to point out to those who need it, that the Bible is a collection of books. This is not like an Anthology like The plays of Shakespear or the City Watch Trilogy from Discworld. It's not just a collection of novels. It's accounts of happennings (I hesitate to use the words: 'Historical Accounts' for fear of being lynched by the athiests here), it's poems, it's letters, it's prophecies. All in all it's quite a melting pot of different documents. Each should ideally be read in the context of their format, their age, and their cultural context IMHO - or at least, they should if the intent is to scrutinise them.

Without going too far into it, I know the Bible has been tinkered with over time. Elements removed by religious leaders for example. It's fair to assume that the PRECISE message has been altered somewhat through translation, but I don't believe it has been enough to alter the meaning from one thing to another. And while this idea is used by athiests to discredit the Bible, they might also want to consider it when they scrutinise it for inconsistencies - if you believe the message can be corrupted to any degree through translation, you must also accept that passages scrutinised might also mislead you when you nitpick about such things and the tense for example ;-)

When it comes to the Bible, you could say I'm a little agnostic. I have more faith in God than I do in the Bible, but that does not go to mean that the Bible is unreliable. That's just my opinion.

Incidentally, I make a GENUINE request here - does anyone know how these particular books came to make up the Bible? Who compiled the Old testament for example and who made the decisions about what stays and what goes? Is this known or at least theorised? I consider that others wrote holy texts so some editorial process must have taken place. Just as today, I ponder on whether some of the testimonies I've heard given in Church might not be worthy of a new contemporary book. But who would make that final decision? If we now have the 60 (or is it 90) minute Bible, then surely we have reached a point where it has been seen as acceptible to edit the bible for the purpose of fitting into our busy lives.

Anyway.....




That'll do, Donkey. That'll do.



Kin Wicked
Leader of the Wikaedians

My personal suspicion is that certain paradoxes must hold true for us to be here.

That's been my suspicion for quite some time. Good to know I'm not the only one. :)

That, or I'm too stupid to understand it all, which is of course possible.

Ditto.

Hi Peeps,

Incidentally, I make a GENUINE request here - does anyone know how these particular books came to make up the Bible?

Wikipedia has a decent article on this, as I recall. Might want to check it out.

Doesn't explain why being gay is a sin. YOU'RE BORN WITH IT, so some people can't help being gay, it's in your genes. And the word Capital offense sounds a little too modern

Their is no conclusive evidence that points to a gay gene or on the other end of the spectrum that's all choice. The fact of the matter no one really knows. There is evidence pointing to certain characteristics that encourage homosexuality, in the same fashion that certain characteristics make being an acoholic more likely. If you do have conclusive evidence and this is wrong, please let me know.

I don't understand why every conversation about god or religion results in this quagmire of idiotic name calling and insults.

There is nothing wrong with any point of view one might have. The ONLY "person" who can objectively say who is right is "god" when and or if he or she shows up to deal witrh the subject.

The bible clearly denounces fighting amongst oneselves. "as it remains with you be peacable with all men (persons)" "do not throw your pearls before swine" even suports this statement. meaning if someone you tell about your religion doesnt want to hear about it or has "their own religion" thats fine.

It seems to me that looking at the world as it is, Christianity is the leading cause of the evil in the world. that however is just my opinion based on the outcome of policies put in place by and action directly taken by christians in the name of god.

Take isreal for example, The christians, muslums and jews all hold isreal as sacred and they expect some senario involving jesus. my question instead of violating gods laws in support of god why not be accepting of others views and less aboslute about our own beliefs.

Personally I keep my beliefs fluid as to avoid harden possioning and unnessisary conflict based on theories no one is able to prove until the "end"?

I welcome your enlightenment on this matter

Let's think about what you just said.
I don't understand why every conversation about god or religion results in this quagmire of idiotic name calling and insults.the reasoning is simple. God cannot be proven or Disproven. thus it comes down to two children screaming "IS NOT!" "IS TOO!"

There is nothing wrong with any point of view one might have. The ONLY "person" who can objectively say who is right is "god" when and or if he or she shows up to deal witrh the subject.yep. tho when "God" does show up, it may be too late... :(

The bible clearly denounces fighting amongst oneselves. "as it remains with you be peacable with all men (persons)" "do not throw your pearls before swine" even suports this statement. meaning if someone you tell about your religion doesnt want to hear about it or has "their own religion" thats fine. agreed, and to that same extent, Atheists also should follow that rule. and here on these forums, a person is not forced to view these threads nor are they forced to participate in them. yet many do, and add nothing more than "Liar" "Am NOT!"

It seems to me that looking at the world as it is, Christianity is the leading cause of the evil in the world. that however is just my opinion based on the outcome of policies put in place by and action directly taken by christians in the name of god. to be fair, it's not just Christianity. Islam fanatics blow up themselves and people around them in the Name of Allah. but the media thrives on these Fanatics that exsists on all issues.

Take isreal for example, The christians, muslums and jews all hold isreal as sacred and they expect some senario involving jesus. my question instead of violating gods laws in support of god why not be accepting of others views and less aboslute about our own beliefs. because the fanatics that exsists on all three areas are hardheaded.

Personally I keep my beliefs fluid as to avoid harden possioning and unnessisary conflict based on theories no one is able to prove until the "end"?personally, I believe Faith needs to be solid. Flexable, but not fluid else it's not Faith but a Fad. as you study your faith, you need to keep praying and the truth will be revealed in your heart.

I welcome your enlightenment on this matterand when you get it, please share. :D

I've read an argument here about how an athiest might suppose a position of a thiest in order to reach a conlcusion regarding a matter of faith.
Its drawback is that if you cannot totally empathise with the oppositions standpoint, how can you fairly conclude anything reasonable about your opponents position?This is a strawman. The method was not used to prove or disprove religions or deities, but rather to gain an objective insight into what kind of deity this God character is supposed to be.
This is also why it absolutely isn't a drawback that the method doesn't allow bias from believer or unbeliever.

To illustrate: do we listen to the believer, who claims the Biblical God is a nice guy, or do we listen to the Bible, which rather clearly presents God as a vicious massmurderer.
If we're contemplating Biblical Christianity, it stands to reason that we'd want to pay attention to the Biblical accounts of the God, as the follower may both have got the message wrong, and have an interest in presenting the God as a benevolent being.Therein is the problem of relying 100% on your presented education and not allowing scope for independant thought.You're right, in a way. The problem lies in followers decrying critical thinking & their own scripture, as soon as it doesn't agree with them.It needs to be a fact or unbiassed account of a fact.If you & I read a Bible, we'll read the same things. This obviously isn't proof of anything supernatural, but supposing the supernatural exists, it does provide an unbiased account of the religion & deity. This is why the Bible is handy for learning something about your deity.Intrapersonal experience (as the athiest would view it, Extrapersonal experience as the believer sees it) is clearly inadmissable in these terms. So how can a logical athiest debator ever understand their oppositions position, and how can the believer ever really convince the athiest of any validity of his/her experieces?But are we seriously trying to evangelise here? As far as I'm concerned, you can be as religious as you like. I just reserve the right to think you're a bit crazy, just like I probably am in my own special way.Let's take another angle:
You are the sole witness of an event. The event has left no physical evidence of occurring. You know it to be true. The rest of the world refuses to believe you as your are but one witness and there is no tangible evidence relating to your description of the alleged event. Does that mean the event never occurred? Curb your cynicism and sarcasm for a moment. Can you accept that a fact may exist without evidence? You may be privy to the fact and yet be disbelieved. The fact remains whether others wish to believe in it or not.What cause do others have for disbelieving the event?

See, if you tell me you had a wonderful steak the other day, one that I would've loved to taste, I won't believe you. Why? Because I'm vegan, and the thought of sinking my teeth into mangled cow-bits, is somewhat repulsive to me.

On the other hand, if you tell me you've just come fron a deep dive, where you discovered & named a new species, I'd be inclined to believe you. I have no reason not to.As has been stated more than once in this post, No one has PROVEN that God exists. Neither has anyone PROVEN that he does not. That certainly does not mean you must believe, but it would be a fair step I think for the staunch athiests among you to take a step toward agnostic, if only on those grounds.I do consider myself a rather staunch atheist :p
I am, however, also an agnostic. I realise that it is impossible to prove a negative, and I realise that it is a logical impossibility to examine that which isn't within the scope of the universe.In personal terms, the Pink Unicorn and the Teal Squid have not touched my life and therefore I do not believe in them. God has (though asking me to prove it at this juncture is, I hope you realise, fruitless for the reasons covered above).This begs the question; would you be Christian, if you'd never been exposed to Christianity?
I think I can fairly safely say that most atheists view that as highly unlikely. Would you be religious? Possibly. Does that make your particular deity more likely? Not a bit.[discovery] In a parallel sense, faith is a kind of paradigm.Would it not be more accurate to say that non-belief requires one to broaden one's horizon? Before gravity was recognised as a natural force, people by & large thought it was there as a result of supernatural influence (whether your God's or something else). If we assume that gravity's always been a natural force, and that we just didn't recognise it for what it was, what is the implication for religion?

Perhaps religion is simply a symptom of a human desire to anthropomorphize everything? Look at how nicely everything fits us humans. The surroundings are so suited for us, that one might easily suspect they were created just for us - just like a flea might think the back of a dog was created just for it, or an intestinal worm might believe your intestines was created just for it.

Or perhaps evolution - social & biological - has simply produced us specifically for this life, and our extreme adaptation just leaves us confused.And IF you ever find yourself in that position, you must remember that the burden of proof is not upon you. [...] If you KNOW it, what further proof do you need? From here on in it's about cultivating your relationship with God.Abandon disbelief for a moment, and imagine yourself in the following situation:

You know you've been abducted by aliens while you slept. You know this, with every fiber of your being. You can't prove it. At most, you can hope you'll be abducted again when someone's around to verify it, but regardless, you KNOW you've been abducted.

Is it wishful thinking? A hallucination? Have you simply gone off the deep end?
In short; is it more credible that you're deluding yourself - which you know full well can happen to people - or is it more credible that aliens abducted you in your sleep?

In the hypothetical situation you outline, I'd seek mental help - just as I would in the situation I outlined.OK, you can stop pretending now (if you wish) and return to your Godless existence. For a moment though, wasn't that interesting? For a moment, you had a vague idea of what it's like to have faith.Well.. When I was younger, I did a lot of shrooms. I think I do have a pretty good idea of what it's like to get lost in la-la land - no offence.As a parent, you grow to know your child and your child grows to know you. Unless the situation is clearly abusive, you know that each parent is raising their child in a way that best fits their unique relationship. I know that's unpopular, and some parents seem better at cultivating that relationship than others so it's not that simple, but I believe through my observation that this is true.There's some famous quote or other, going something like this "The hardest thing in the world, is to watch someone make a mistake without correcting them".

But again, this is actually just you & your anthropic universe. I too feel "blessed" on occation. Of course, I'd normally call it "feeling lucky to be alive". Likewise, atheists can have feelings similar to a crisis of faith. The world can be a harsh place. Not too long ago, I thoroughly cursed the universe & felt it was fucking unfair.
It is, after all, a handy thing to blame, and inevitably the scene on which our good & bad times play themselves out. But do I see it as a father figure? Not at all. Why would I?But sometimes you have to let them see the consequence of their action (as long as it's not too harsh) in order for them to learn why Mummy and Daddy say not to do it. You have to give them freedom.Yet the Christian deity only gives us the freedom to be coerced. It's freedom at gunpoint. The god is the supposed creator of all, and if that is true, the full scope of our freedom is to love & obey, or suffer eternal torment. If you raised your daughter in a similar fashion, I would be tempted to give you a couple of choices at gunpoint - in order to protect your child from you.I cannot take the consequences away - and if I could, would it be right to? Surely she must learn from them. And, though I may be saddenned by her at times, I will always love her and will always be there for her, too. That is unconditional. She will also make me proud by her actions and strengths. Yet if your daughter decides to do drugs & have unprotected sex, you're not the one that gives her an adiction. You're not the one that smites her with possibly lethal STDs. You're not the one who ruin her reputation amongst her prudish, intolerant peers.

You cannot say the same about your God. Failure to obey him means you'll suffer consequences created by him.Do I really need to spell out the parallel between my Daughter and I and God and we, his children? I trust not.I think you have, and I think it speaks volumes that your do not hold the God thing to the same ethic standard you hold yourself.Look at where you all are! Look at the number of times people have said to you that if you will it, you can know God and be saved from this potential damnation.Conversion at gunpoint. Oh yes, I do adore the Christian concept of freedom.This is all very focussed on personal gain though, I feel. Be good and go to heaven...and there's the insentive. Often, that's why weak christians come across as weak christians. Focus on the now!! Lead by example! Demonstrate Gods Kingdom here on earth.In such a guilt-loving deathcult, it's a wonder parents don't murder their children. Sure, they'll go to hell for it, but I've never met a parent who wouldn't die to secure the future wellbeing of their children.In terms of the passages in the Bible that demonstrate God's wrath... God can't be angry? He's had plenty of reason to be!If a deity wishes to gain my respect, it will - at the very least - need to share my sense of ethics. Can I get angry? Of course. Do I occationally resort to violence? Yups.

But do I viciously buthcer scores of people? No. I do not kill. Not when I'm angry, not when I'm drunk, not when I'm anything else. I don't torture anyone either. I rarely seek vengeance, and when I do, it never involves murder & torture.

In my eyes, your deity is a pathetic bully, drunk on its own power. Perhaps that isn't the case, but regardless of the cause of its alleged actions, they simply cannot be excused.

If God was real, I'd fight it - for the good of humanity & to preserve my own freedom.

I do not understand how you can value such an entity. As I've said before, trying to make the monstrous actions of your deity look benign & acceptable, is sickening. Hell, even someone trying to excuse the vicious rape of an infant, by saying it was for the good of the child, is far less of a vile apologetic than those who'd defend the supposed actions of your deity.

Hi Peeps,

I've come back to have another stab at the debate now I'm a bit more awake. Sorry if I cover old ground - I've been struggling to catch up but I'm still about 15 pages behind being quite a slow reader.

Anyway, there's so much I want to address and so many different people I want to reply to - so hopefully I can keep all this coherant.

So, I've been reading your comments and a few things have really jumped out at me:

God as a murderous, evil being destroying those of mankind who would care to live differently to his plan.
God as an uncarring God willing to let tragedy afflict his creation.
God as a powerless or inept being unable to look after his own.
The Bible being self contradictory.
The Bible as a tool of oppression and/or control
Faith as little or nothing to logic
Debating practices and the assumption that holding a different opinion on how to debate makes an individual uneducated and out of their depth.


I'm not sure if I'll get round to all this, but let's take a stab at it (and most likely not in that order):

I've read an argument here about how an athiest might suppose a position of a thiest in order to reach a conlcusion regarding a matter of faith. I can see why this would seem sensible, but also acknowledge it's failing. In its favour, the technique under other circumstances ought to allow you to disembark from your position and see the opposing position as a more abstract and objective subject. It creates an arena of simplified clarity in order to play the scenario to a logical conclusion within a kind of mind-game. It's absolutely feasible under most circumstances. Its drawback is that if you cannot totally empathise with the oppositions standpoint, how can you fairly conclude anything reasonable about your opponents position?

Therein is the problem of relying 100% on your presented education and not allowing scope for independant thought. I know those keen to fight about....well....anything it seems, will gleefully declare that I decry education. Please don't take these words out of context. Of course education is important. But so is independant thought. There are unique circumstances where the status quo needs to be re-examined in favour of finding a more sensitive method of (in this case) debate.

The issue I'm sliding around is that a debate about having faith in God is very sticky. As we address the discussion as a debate, it is felt that 'proof' must be presented. Will a wholly logical opponent accept personal experience as 'proof'? Of course not! Proof needs to be an account that all those present can experience themselves. It needs to be a fact or unbiassed account of a fact. Intrapersonal experience (as the athiest would view it, Extrapersonal experience as the believer sees it) is clearly inadmissable in these terms. So how can a logical athiest debator ever understand their oppositions position, and how can the believer ever really convince the athiest of any validity of his/her experieces?

Let's take another angle:
You are the sole witness of an event. The event has left no physical evidence of occurring. You know it to be true. The rest of the world refuses to believe you as your are but one witness and there is no tangible evidence relating to your description of the alleged event. Does that mean the event never occurred? Curb your cynicism and sarcasm for a moment. Can you accept that a fact may exist without evidence? You may be privy to the fact and yet be disbelieved. The fact remains whether others wish to believe in it or not.

As has been stated more than once in this post, No one has PROVEN that God exists. Neither has anyone PROVEN that he does not. That certainly does not mean you must believe, but it would be a fair step I think for the staunch athiests among you to take a step toward agnostic, if only on those grounds.

Certainly, utilizing logic games you can again point out that your Teal Squid and Pink Unicorn can't be disproven and are therefore also worthy of worship. There is a huge oversight here though. This is that neither the Squid nor the Unicorn have any true followers. This is not an argument toward believers making a God, but more that of a God inspiring followers to worship. This still very simplified format gives rise to the accemptance of pluralism...but that's another slightly different subject, and if anyone's really interested, I'll give you my take on that either here or privately. For now, it can wait.

In personal terms, the Pink Unicorn and the Teal Squid have not touched my life and therefore I do not believe in them. God has (though asking me to prove it at this juncture is, I hope you realise, fruitless for the reasons covered above).

I know it's labouring the point, but it helps me in a narrative sense to get back on track: Since we're all so keen here on utilizing scientific discoveries to abolish religious notions, consider something that has been been discovered by man and yet has always been there, doing it's job. Something like Gravity, for example. Before Newton's discovery, did gravity exist? Naturally, it did. It was there as a fact. It was not seeking to be discovered and neither was it hidden deviously from us. It just was. But it took a new paradigm to recognise it.

Imagine you were Newton under the fabled apple tree. You get clocked by an apple, and start to get excited as a new paradigm opens up to you. Imagine too that you ran indoors and grabbed your house keeper and said "I've just discovered this force called gravity.....LOOK:" you hold aloft the apple and let it go. It drops. The following sound is that of this now rather bruised apple bouncing on the floor followed by a moment's silence. You look into the unimpressed eyes of your house keeper before she bustles away mumbling "Bloody fool! It fell! what did he expect? I could have told that'd happen....."

In a parallel sense, faith is a kind of paradigm. The only way to really understand what it is and why it's important is to have an experience beyond your accepted reality - perhaps in this case, beyond physicall proof - such as a sense of God's guidance or a change within yourself thet defies explanation. I know it sounds terribly mysticall, but then that is perhaps what it is: mystical. Now that you've had your awakening to a different kind of existence...... how do you explain to your mates that you're pretty sure there might actually be a God?

And IF you ever find yourself in that position, you must remember that the burden of proof is not upon you. Accept for a moment, all you athiests, that my position is correct in the time honoured debating method ;-) You now KNOW in your heart and mind that there is a God. Your experiences may have shown you that he wants a relationship with you and wants you to be a part of his kingdom. Now you know this to be true, it is beyond question. You know the ground is beneath you, you know the sky is blue, you know fire is hot and you know God is with you. If you KNOW it, what further proof do you need? From here on in it's about cultivating your relationship with God.

OK, you can stop pretending now (if you wish) and return to your Godless existence. For a moment though, wasn't that interesting? For a moment, you had a vague idea of what it's like to have faith. Perhaps you can appreciate why, when pressed for evidence, a Christian will stumble and reach for the Bible. If you want evidence, we're back to things that are written down and compared to experiencing faith, text just wont cut the mustard. Unless God sees your reading of the Bible as an opportunity to speak to you through the text (again, please avoid the literal sense of direct communication. If this needs further explanation, please ask!!).

So, to round off this bit of my rant, DEBATE is not an ideal place to discuss faith. The athiest standpoint is disadvantaged as there is most likely a lack of "relevant" experience, and the christian is disadvantaged by a lack of a certain desired form of evidence.

---

What about this talk of God being evil or inept? I was a little disturbed by the idea when put in the context of reasoning God to be malevolent or uncarring because he would either allow or SEND you to burn in hell because you did not believe in him.

While I suspect this was an amount of baiting, I also find the notion disturbing as it is utterly contra to both my beliefs and experience of God.

I wish to talk at this moment about the nature of god as my feeble mortal mind can comprehend it. I will attempt to address the issues that have been raised about the bloodier parts of the Bible later.

I was raised as a christian. That's why I attribute part of my belief systems to conditioning. But that's not as bad as it sounds - we are conditioned by our upbringing and education, so we are all burdenned by the ideas and dogmas of our peers to one extent or another.

However, I reached an age when I asked lots of questions of my faith; many like the ones aired here. I accepted God as omnipotent and omniscient. If God knows all, why would he allow us to go through the suffering we endure in life? Why did he go ahead with his creation knowing the misfortune that so many would have to suffer, and knowing he would be creating a breeding ground for the evil he found so abhorent? And this lead to a crisis of faith. With a bit of church hopping and some changes in my life - not least of all becoming a father, I began to find enough answer to these questions.

I'll let you in on a gross little secret. If you are constipated and enjoy the peace, quiet and privacy of the bathroom - you'll find you have alot of time to sit and mull ideas over. And I did. I've been quite a Trekky at times and you get thinking about the themes and pseudo-science raised there and contemplate time travel and other fairly abstract notions about time and space and such like and I would end up with some peculiar theories and ideas for books I want to write and so forth. I also ended up with ways back into my faith - even if they are "lies-to-children".

The more I thought about it, the more I realised that God is far greater and more powerful than the dimensions we occupy and the energy and matter within it. I came to realise that with or without my silly theories, I had to accept that I did not and cannot understand God because there is NO frame of reference. I felt that I could not understand his motives for creating the universe and all that constitutes it, and for a time this was a problem for me as I couldn't relate to God.

As time went on, I'd heard several ministers refer to our relationship with God as that of a child to a very wise father. But it was not until I became a parent that I was able to underestand this properly. And I believe it is really one of the best annalogies we have for God today.

I've gone over this in an earlier post - but let's see if I can do it justice here:
As a parent, we have choices to make. On this earth, the trouble is that everyone is an expert and wants to tell you where you're going wrong. God, however, in his perfection (do you want me to come back to this some time?) is without that problem.... lucky him! Do you control your child or encourage their individuality? Do you encourage them to develope quickly if they are keen or let them work things out on their own? Do you punish your child when they are naughty or let them run amok so as not to stifle their creativity? Do you scold your child? Smack when necessary? Send to the corner or their bedroom? Do you make your child eat what's good for them or give them what they want because at least you know they're eating enough that way?

As a parent, you grow to know your child and your child grows to know you. Unless the situation is clearly abusive, you know that each parent is raising their child in a way that best fits their unique relationship. I know that's unpopular, and some parents seem better at cultivating that relationship than others so it's not that simple, but I believe through my observation that this is true.

God, though the same being has had different eras in history. You might argue that a society makes God into whatever they need him to be, but I think it is more the other way about. God is to us what we need him to be. Authoritarian? Tolerant? Strict? Even handed? God certainly became much more accessible to human kind when he came to Earth in the form of his son. He experienced a life with us. Not only is he GOD but he is also man. I intend returning to this in due course as I have infact jumped ahead.

What I want to say here is that God gave us free will. If we were all powerful and wished to create subjects to rule over, would we be so brave as to let our subjects decide for themselves whether they loved us or not? God gave us this great gift - the FREEDOM! With every freedom comes responsibility. If we are to have free will, then we must be responsible for the choices we make. Accept the consequences. This applies to disobeying as in the original sin, and to abandoning God - choosing to live without him. As a parent, I can watch my daughter play and I can see her bringing herself close to harm. It doesn't matter how many times you tell her to stay away from this or that, she still goes to it....she's a kid!! but sometimes you have to let them see the consequence of their action (as long as it's not too harsh) in order for them to learn why Mummy and Daddy say not to do it. You have to give them freedom.

As my little girl becomes less little, there will be all kinds of temptation in her life. She may be presented with the opportunity to start taking drugs or enter into casual sex or...well... that's in the future and I've got enough to deal with right now. What am I mean to do? Follow her? Send a unic to be her chaperone? Of course not - aside from the impracticality, she has free will and I would be wrong not to let her go and make her own mistakes or be brave and do the right thing. As her parent, I will be there to guide her. When she makes her mistakes, I cannot take the consequences away - and if I could, would it be right to? Surely she must learn from them. And, though I may be saddenned by her at times, I will always love her and will always be there for her, too. That is unconditional. She will also make me proud by her actions and strengths.

Do I really need to spell out the parallel between my Daughter and I and God and we, his children? I trust not.

But to readdress God SENDING you to hell. Certainly not. God has given you the opportunity to make up your mind. He will love you no matter what, but you are responsible for your actions. And through your actions you have willed the matter out of his hands. (I know we have an omnipotence issue here again - but again, if you want, we'll talk about that later) When you reach judgement, will you be able to claim that you never had the opportunity to know him? Look at where you all are! Look at the number of times people have said to you that if you will it, you can know God and be saved from this potential damnation.

This is all very focussed on personal gain though, I feel. Be good and go to heaven...and there's the insentive. Often, that's why weak christians come across as weak christians. Focus on the now!! Lead by example! Demonstrate Gods Kingdom here on earth.

Anyway, I can feel those sulky unimpressed house keeper eyes boring into me.

In terms of the passages in the Bible that demonstrate God's wrath... God can't be angry? He's had plenty of reason to be! You cannot objectively judge God without understanding him. We are unable to understand God and certainly in terms of a God to be feared. God in this era, I can get soem kind of naive handle on by comparison to a parent. But God of the ancient eras....well, as I've admitted - I'm not at all well read in the Bible and so cannot comment in detail.....but really we come back to faith. Part of faith is accepting that we do not have all the answers. Another part, is knowing that we do not need the answers in order to have that relationship with God.

Sorry - I know that's all a bit weak.....but there is my weakness - not enough reading into the book central to my faith. Again, if anyone's really interested why, then sure, we'll talk, but just accept that I'm not really the best person to field that one.

A very good book that covers many of the topics I'm stabbing around at here and others, if you're interested in a fresh perspective is "A New Kind Of Christian" by Brian D McLaren. I'd recommend it to anyone genuinely interested in teh issue of faith and perceived religious inconsistencies.

Lastly - I can only really enter this as a bit of a footnote, really, is my opinion about the Bible.

There seem to be any number of you who for me are quite intimidating as you seem to have done your homework regarding the nature of the Bible. But I'm also reading alot of messages that make claims like it was written by one individual or I'm reading messages that indicate that it's all written as prose etc. I just want to point out to those who need it, that the Bible is a collection of books. This is not like an Anthology like The plays of Shakespear or the City Watch Trilogy from Discworld. It's not just a collection of novels. It's accounts of happennings (I hesitate to use the words: 'Historical Accounts' for fear of being lynched by the athiests here), it's poems, it's letters, it's prophecies. All in all it's quite a melting pot of different documents. Each should ideally be read in the context of their format, their age, and their cultural context IMHO - or at least, they should if the intent is to scrutinise them.

Without going too far into it, I know the Bible has been tinkered with over time. Elements removed by religious leaders for example. It's fair to assume that the PRECISE message has been altered somewhat through translation, but I don't believe it has been enough to alter the meaning from one thing to another. And while this idea is used by athiests to discredit the Bible, they might also want to consider it when they scrutinise it for inconsistencies - if you believe the message can be corrupted to any degree through translation, you must also accept that passages scrutinised might also mislead you when you nitpick about such things and the tense for example ;-)

When it comes to the Bible, you could say I'm a little agnostic. I have more faith in God than I do in the Bible, but that does not go to mean that the Bible is unreliable. That's just my opinion.

Incidentally, I make a GENUINE request here - does anyone know how these particular books came to make up the Bible? Who compiled the Old testament for example and who made the decisions about what stays and what goes? Is this known or at least theorised? I consider that others wrote holy texts so some editorial process must have taken place. Just as today, I ponder on whether some of the testimonies I've heard given in Church might not be worthy of a new contemporary book. But who would make that final decision? If we now have the 60 (or is it 90) minute Bible, then surely we have reached a point where it has been seen as acceptible to edit the bible for the purpose of fitting into our busy lives.

Anyway.....

That'll do, Donkey. That'll do.

Kin Wicked
Leader of the Wikaedians
Well done Wikaedia!!! I can relate to a lot of what you have written, and you have done a masterful job of explaining certain situations that have been log jams on this thread. You obviously put a lot of thought, as well as heart and soul, into this post. Thanks!!

This is a strawman. The method was not used to prove or disprove religions or deities, but rather to gain an objective insight into what kind of deity this God character is supposed to be.
This is also why it absolutely isn't a drawback that the method doesn't allow bias from believer or unbeliever.

To illustrate: do we listen to the believer, who claims the Biblical God is a nice guy, or do we listen to the Bible, which rather clearly presents God as a vicious massmurderer.
If we're contemplating Biblical Christianity, it stands to reason that we'd want to pay attention to the Biblical accounts of the God, as the follower may both have got the message wrong, and have an interest in presenting the God as a benevolent being.You're right, in a way. The problem lies in followers decrying critical thinking & their own scripture, as soon as it doesn't agree with them.If you & I read a Bible, we'll read the same things. This obviously isn't proof of anything supernatural, but supposing the supernatural exists, it does provide an unbiased account of the religion & deity. This is why the Bible is handy for learning something about your deity.But are we seriously trying to evangelise here? As far as I'm concerned, you can be as religious as you like. I just reserve the right to think you're a bit crazy, just like I probably am in my own special way.What cause do others have for disbelieving the event?

See, if you tell me you had a wonderful steak the other day, one that I would've loved to taste, I won't believe you. Why? Because I'm vegan, and the thought of sinking my teeth into mangled cow-bits, is somewhat repulsive to me.

On the other hand, if you tell me you've just come fron a deep dive, where you discovered & named a new species, I'd be inclined to believe you. I have no reason not to.I do consider myself a rather staunch atheist :p
I am, however, also an agnostic. I realise that it is impossible to prove a negative, and I realise that it is a logical impossibility to examine that which isn't within the scope of the universe.This begs the question; would you be Christian, if you'd never been exposed to Christianity?
I think I can fairly safely say that most atheists view that as highly unlikely. Would you be religious? Possibly. Does that make your particular deity more likely? Not a bit.Would it not be more accurate to say that non-belief requires one to broaden one's horizon? Before gravity was recognised as a natural force, people by & large thought it was there as a result of supernatural influence (whether your God's or something else). If we assume that gravity's always been a natural force, and that we just didn't recognise it for what it was, what is the implication for religion?

Perhaps religion is simply a symptom of a human desire to anthropomorphize everything? Look at how nicely everything fits us humans. The surroundings are so suited for us, that one might easily suspect they were created just for us - just like a flea might think the back of a dog was created just for it, or an intestinal worm might believe your intestines was created just for it.

Or perhaps evolution - social & biological - has simply produced us specifically for this life, and our extreme adaptation just leaves us confused.Abandon disbelief for a moment, and imagine yourself in the following situation:

You know you've been abducted by aliens while you slept. You know this, with every fiber of your being. You can't prove it. At most, you can hope you'll be abducted again when someone's around to verify it, but regardless, you KNOW you've been abducted.

Is it wishful thinking? A hallucination? Have you simply gone off the deep end?
In short; is it more credible that you're deluding yourself - which you know full well can happen to people - or is it more credible that aliens abducted you in your sleep?

In the hypothetical situation you outline, I'd seek mental help - just as I would in the situation I outlined.Well.. When I was younger, I did a lot of shrooms. I think I do have a pretty good idea of what it's like to get lost in la-la land - no offence.There's some famous quote or other, going something like this "The hardest thing in the world, is to watch someone make a mistake without correcting them".

But again, this is actually just you & your anthropic universe. I too feel "blessed" on occation. Of course, I'd normally call it "feeling lucky to be alive". Likewise, atheists can have feelings similar to a crisis of faith. The world can be a harsh place. Not too long ago, I thoroughly cursed the universe & felt it was fucking unfair.
It is, after all, a handy thing to blame, and inevitably the scene on which our good & bad times play themselves out. But do I see it as a father figure? Not at all. Why would I?Yet the Christian deity only gives us the freedom to be coerced. It's freedom at gunpoint. The god is the supposed creator of all, and if that is true, the full scope of our freedom is to love & obey, or suffer eternal torment. If you raised your daughter in a similar fashion, I would be tempted to give you a couple of choices at gunpoint - in order to protect your child from you.Yet if your daughter decides to do drugs & have unprotected sex, you're not the one that gives her an adiction. You're not the one that smites her with possibly lethal STDs. You're not the one who ruin her reputation amongst her prudish, intolerant peers.

You cannot say the same about your God. Failure to obey him means you'll suffer consequences created by him.I think you have, and I think it speaks volumes that your do not hold the God thing to the same ethic standard you hold yourself.Conversion at gunpoint. Oh yes, I do adore the Christian concept of freedom.In such a guilt-loving deathcult, it's a wonder parents don't murder their children. Sure, they'll go to hell for it, but I've never met a parent who wouldn't die to secure the future wellbeing of their children.If a deity wishes to gain my respect, it will - at the very least - need to share my sense of ethics. Can I get angry? Of course. Do I occationally resort to violence? Yups.

But do I viciously buthcer scores of people? No. I do not kill. Not when I'm angry, not when I'm drunk, not when I'm anything else. I don't torture anyone either. I rarely seek vengeance, and when I do, it never involves murder & torture.

In my eyes, your deity is a pathetic bully, drunk on its own power. Perhaps that isn't the case, but regardless of the cause of its alleged actions, they simply cannot be excused.

If God was real, I'd fight it - for the good of humanity & to preserve my own freedom.

I do not understand how you can value such an entity. As I've said before, trying to make the monstrous actions of your deity look benign & acceptable, is sickening. Hell, even someone trying to excuse the vicious rape of an infant, by saying it was for the good of the child, is far less of a vile apologetic than those who'd defend the supposed actions of your deity.
By your unwavering desire to remain riveted to your "logic only" approach to this matter of faith, you have tried to override the spiritual aspect of Wikaedia's post, and in doing so, you clearly demonstrate the accuracy of his claim:

I've read an argument here about how an athiest might suppose a position of a thiest in order to reach a conlcusion regarding a matter of faith. I can see why this would seem sensible, but also acknowledge it's failing.......

Its drawback is that if you cannot totally empathise with the oppositions standpoint, how can you fairly conclude anything reasonable about your opponents position?

personally, I believe Faith needs to be solid. Flexable, but not fluid else it's not Faith but a Fad. as you study your faith, you need to keep praying and the truth will be revealed in your heart.

and when you get it, please share. :D
Amen brother!! We finally find some common ground. Well, it is not the first time but it is all good.

Amen brother!! We finally find some common ground. Well, it is not the first time but it is all good.
to be honest CanuckHeaven... I was rather surprised by your posts here. Nice to be debating with you and not against you. :D

By your unwavering desire to remain riveted to your "logic only" approach to this matter of faith, you have tried to override the spiritual aspect of Wikaedia's post, and in doing so, you clearly demonstrate the accuracy of his claim:Have I?

I take it this means Wikaedia is the authority on the Christian deity, above & beyond the Bible, all other scripture, Christian clergy & all of Christianity.

If that isn't the case, then you've clearly misunderstood something. If it is the case, however, I have not demonstrated the accuracy of his claims, but rather mistaken the source of Christianity - for which I ever so humbly apologise.

Is the same true of other written words, then?

Is the scripture of non-christian religions, even religions that teach things completely different from Christianity, equally as justified? If not, why not?
Can any written words that may or not be true be used to justify a belief? Are not all written beliefs thus equally justified, and thus the bible no more justified than any other scripture?

Do you believe the bible may or may not be true, or do you believe it is entirely true? Partially true?

You've said on this thread that nobody can know The Truth.

So if you are asked if Jesus is The Truth, you would have to say you don't know, yes?

CanuckHeaven, these are questions about things you've said on this thread. If you don't want to reply to them, say so, and we'll leave it be. You've repeatedly ignored my invitiation to a new thread wherein I would address the things you said you wanted to discuss with me if you would address my questions as well, unless you just haven't seen the invitation. I extend it again.

If you don't want to discuss it anymore, say so, and I'll leave it be, although
I find it concerning that you won't even answer whether you believe the bible is completely true, which I would think is central to the thread topic of faith in god (or in this case, the biblical version of God, which you evidently may or may not believe in, we can't know until you answer the question).

I've answered for you that I don't believe the bible to be true. I can't prove that the bible is untrue any more than I can prove that the Koran, the Bagvadghita, or the Buddhist texs are untrue. But as they are all equally unprovable, the fact that they are unprovable as true or false doesn't support any of them over the others.

But if I believed in one of them, I'd be prepared to discuss the implications.

I'm only asking for what you believe. Why can you not directly answer?
Please just say whether you believe the bible to be true, without falsehood, so we can then discuss the implications of that. If you can't or won't, say so.

Anyway, if your answer is "drop it" or "I don't want to talk about it with you anymore", fine, but say so if it is, please.
I truly do not see any need for a separate thread to discuss your issues. I fully understand your motivation and I believe that your motives are less than honourable. If you go back through the thread, I am certain that you will understand exactly what I mean, unless of course you would like me to spell them out for you?

Have I?
Yes I do believe you have. You obviously cannot empathize with his spirituality, and perhaps you never will?

I take it this means Wikaedia is the authority on the Christian deity, above & beyond the Bible, all other scripture, Christian clergy & all of Christianity.
He doesn't claim to be an authority at all and he even humbly apologized (in advance) for that.

If that isn't the case, then you've clearly misunderstood something. If it is the case, however, I have not demonstrated the accuracy of his claims, but rather mistaken the source of Christianity - for which I ever so humbly apologise.
Actually, I do believe that you have indeed validated his observation in that regard.

to be honest CanuckHeaven... I was rather surprised by your posts here. Nice to be debating with you and not against you. :D
Tis a pleasure indeed!! :D

I suspect that proposing to you that paradoxes may indeed be true would be useless at this point, though I think it would be a fascinating question to discuss.[/QUOTE]

I'll bite, unless i misread your post youi don't seem to be one of the insane zelots. I also believe in god too, id wager teh same one you do but im not christian. So what about these paradoxes.

I've read an argument here about how an athiest might suppose a position of a thiest in order to reach a conlcusion regarding a matter of faith. I can see why this would seem sensible, but also acknowledge it's failing. In its favour, the technique under other circumstances ought to allow you to disembark from your position and see the opposing position as a more abstract and objective subject. It creates an arena of simplified clarity in order to play the scenario to a logical conclusion within a kind of mind-game. It's absolutely feasible under most circumstances. Its drawback is that if you cannot totally empathise with the oppositions standpoint, how can you fairly conclude anything reasonable about your opponents position?

By examining it rationally, rather than emotionally (which empathy definitively allays to, a priori). Now, a religious person can still be rational (see Jocabia for a great example), but empathy may help you understand why somebody would embrace a fallacy, but won't reveal them.

Also, I have not just empathised with, but experienced the reilgious position. I used to be one. So, evidently, I can then make observations about the opposing position.


Therein is the problem of relying 100% on your presented education and not allowing scope for independant thought. I know those keen to fight about....well....anything it seems, will gleefully declare that I decry education. Please don't take these words out of context. Of course education is important. But so is independant thought.

You contrast education with independent thought. Does the use of the techniques of analytical thought then make those thoughts somehow not indepedent?

If a person developed and used the ideas of examination of condradiction or other logical methods on their own, without being trained, would that then be indepedent thought, and if they applied those methods to the same results, would the conclusions then be valid?


There are unique circumstances where the status quo needs to be re-examined in favour of finding a more sensitive method of (in this case) debate.

Sensitive? Meaning less aggressive? More civil? I think those things could be done without surrendering logical rigor in discussion. But sensitive in an "empathic" sense, while it might lead to kinder phrasings, will not help the content of any particular premise.

Now, if a person wants to preface any statement, saying they believe it as a matter of faith or intuition and thus excuse themselves from logical rigor, I think that should be fine. Others can then regard the statements accordingly, applying as much or little salt as they prefer.

But if some want to say "Illogical!" at others, they then need to be prepared to have their position examined similarly.



Certainly, utilizing logic games you can again point out that your Teal Squid and Pink Unicorn can't be disproven and are therefore also worthy of worship. There is a huge oversight here though. This is that neither the Squid nor the Unicorn have any true followers. This is not an argument toward believers making a God, but more that of a God inspiring followers to worship.

So, if instead of unicorns, we referenced Shiva or Buddha or another religion with true followers, it would at least demonstrate that no religion is better supported in this vein than others. A Christian then has no better claim than a Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim. If they admit that, fine, but it doesn't help conversion efforts...


I know it's labouring the point, but it helps me in a narrative sense to get back on track: Since we're all so keen here on utilizing scientific discoveries to abolish religious notions, consider something that has been been discovered by man and yet has always been there, doing it's job.

Some may feel science "abolishes" religion, but I for one don't. I know people on this board, such as Dempubliscents1 and Jocabia, who have a thorough understanding of science (although we disagree on much), but they are both still religious. I also work with prominent researchers who have various religions. I don't see that they have to conflict.


In a parallel sense, faith is a kind of paradigm. The only way to really understand what it is and why it's important is to have an experience beyond your accepted reality - perhaps in this case, beyond physicall proof - such as a sense of God's guidance or a change within yourself thet defies explanation. I know it sounds terribly mysticall, but then that is perhaps what it is: mystical. Now that you've had your awakening to a different kind of existence...... how do you explain to your mates that you're pretty sure there might actually be a God?

Well, is the awakening of one person to Hinduism, another to Jesus, and another to Thetans all equally valid existences to wake up to?

I believe people should have a right to believe any of those things, but they just don't provide a basis for a compelling argument, since they are all equally unprovable, albeit fervently believed.


And IF you ever find yourself in that position, you must remember that the burden of proof is not upon you. Accept for a moment, all you athiests, that my position is correct in the time honoured debating method ;-) You now KNOW in your heart and mind that there is a God. Your experiences may have shown you that he wants a relationship with you and wants you to be a part of his kingdom. Now you know this to be true, it is beyond question. You know the ground is beneath you, you know the sky is blue, you know fire is hot and you know God is with you. If you KNOW it, what further proof do you need? From here on in it's about cultivating your relationship with God.


Well, I still think you're not understanding how proof by contradiction works; but consider this: This "knowing by just accepting" works equally well the other way around. If you capricisously and arbitrarily decide to "KNOW" something, you could just as validly decide to "KNOW" the opposite, or a different God, or several Gods, or no God.

The process you're describing is clearly evident in the minds of those who do terrible things in the name of religion. They just accept, and somehow just "know" that God wants them to do terrible things. And the method your describing is just as sound for them as it is for anything else. There's the danger.


OK, you can stop pretending now (if you wish) and return to your Godless existence. For a moment though, wasn't that interesting? For a moment, you had a vague idea of what it's like to have faith.

It was no more interesting or revelatory than the years when I was a devoutly believing Christian. Of course, you can always claim that the "faith" you had was more real than mine, but I truly believed, so I've had your vague idea.

You see, Wikaedia, your statement to "all you atheists" assumes that we never had faith. That assumption is erroneous. Some of us have had "faith".

Is the "faith", as you describe it, of a muslim or hindu the same experience as that of a christian? If not, why not? Wouldn't all your statement here apply to any other religion, or even a purely secular ethic?


Perhaps you can appreciate why, when pressed for evidence, a Christian will stumble and reach for the Bible. If you want evidence, we're back to things that are written down and compared to experiencing faith, text just wont cut the mustard. Unless God sees your reading of the Bible as an opportunity to speak to you through the text (again, please avoid the literal sense of direct communication. If this needs further explanation, please ask!!).

Well, some Christians here emphatically point to the bible, others are unable to even answer to what extent they consider the Bible true. If you are saying that the Bible is inadequate evidence, tell them.

But so long as they use the Bible, the Bible and its stated implications are open to examination.


So, to round off this bit of my rant, DEBATE is not an ideal place to discuss faith. The athiest standpoint is disadvantaged as there is most likely a lack of "relevant" experience, and the christian is disadvantaged by a lack of a certain desired form of evidence.

Can a particular doctrine of faith that a person claims to believe in be debated or discussed?

If a person believes the Bagvadghita (sic?) to be true, can we not point to passages in it and discuss them and their implications?

And no, to examine the implications of that scripture would not requires you to "know" or even believe its true, or lend any credence to its position. It is possible to examine the extrapolations of a statement without holding it to be true.


What about this talk of God being evil or inept? I was a little disturbed by the idea when put in the context of reasoning God to be malevolent or uncarring because he would either allow or SEND you to burn in hell because you did not believe in him.

*big snip*

Do I really need to spell out the parallel between my Daughter and I and God and we, his children? I trust not.

*snip*

But to readdress God SENDING you to hell. Certainly not. God has given you the opportunity to make up your mind. He will love you no matter what, but you are responsible for your actions. And through your actions you have willed the matter out of his hands. *snip*

I read the snipped part, and it was the usual rationalization for eternal torture for human failings.

God, if he were to be real, would make all rules. To describe any matter as "out of his hands" is indicative of the whole line of reasoning. God (if he were real) made the rule that if you don't believe what he wants, choose as he wants, you get tortured forever. If God were real and didn't want it that way, it would be that way. For a perfect being to try to blame fallible humans for anything is, again, indicative of this entire line of reasoning.

If you can look at your daughter and think there would ever be a reason to torture her eternally for being an "unsaved" human, for choosing differently than you wanted, well...that's the mindset that is revealed here and that I want people to see.


In terms of the passages in the Bible that demonstrate God's wrath... God can't be angry? He's had plenty of reason to be!

In some people's view, being angry is a failing, and it is never productive to react with anger (although for fallible beings, its unavoidable). For a perfect being, its not really justifiable.


You cannot objectively judge God without understanding him. We are unable to understand God and certainly in terms of a God to be feared.

But naturally, you consider your opinions and statements about God to be valid, yes?

If you can't judge God for your stated reasons, you can't judge in his favor either. You're following orders from something even you admit you don't understand. In parts of the Bible, God is written to have ordered horrible thigns, and its exactly this mindset that caused people to obey. Still happens today.


God in this era, I can get soem kind of naive handle on by comparison to a parent. But God of the ancient eras....well, as I've admitted - I'm not at all well read in the Bible and so cannot comment in detail.....

And yet you've made up your mind about it, and you've described and ascribed many characteristics to God (because naturally, the parts you want to believe in are the parts that can be understood).


but really we come back to faith. Part of faith is accepting that we do not have all the answers. Another part, is knowing that we do not need the answers in order to have that relationship with God.

I'm sorry, but before I have a relationship with somebody, particularly somebody I'd have to be obedient to, I'd want to know why they ordered the death of a woman who failed to scream while being raped, or any of the other horrible things.


Sorry - I know that's all a bit weak.....but there is my weakness - not enough reading into the book central to my faith. Again, if anyone's really interested why, then sure, we'll talk, but just accept that I'm not really the best person to field that one.

(Well, if it makes you feel any better, my own reading in comparative religion is still slow going. I've been reading the same book on Buddhism here and there for two months. I don't believe the supernatural or religious parts, but its a decent book to provoke thought, but I wouldn't point to it as "truth", per se.)

To be honest, though, yeah, that is all a bit weak, but you've qualified your statement as not being an effort at debate, so your statement isn't really required to be "strong" per se.


Without going too far into it, I know the Bible has been tinkered with over time. Elements removed by religious leaders for example. It's fair to assume that the PRECISE message has been altered somewhat through translation, but I don't believe it has been enough to alter the meaning from one thing to another. And while this idea is used by athiests to discredit the Bible, they might also want to consider it when they scrutinise it for inconsistencies - if you believe the message can be corrupted to any degree through translation, you must also accept that passages scrutinised might also mislead you when you nitpick about such things and the tense for example ;-)

Certainly. And anybody who admits that the Bible is "tinkered with" and may have been corrupted in some aspects takes, in my opinion, a vastly more reasonable position.

But if they claim the bible is true, they cannot pick and choose which parts.

Wikaedia, you seem like a decent enough sort (although I do find some aspects of your mindset dangerous, but just my opinion).

As long as a person opens up with "I am not making a statement that will withstand debate, I claim no logical proof, this is a feeling based on a 'mystical' experience, but here's what I think:" then I think that's fine.

But most aren't doing that.

I truly do not see any need for a separate thread to discuss your issues. I fully understand your motivation and I believe that your motives are less than honourable. If you go back through the thread, I am certain that you will understand exactly what I mean, unless of course you would like me to spell them out for you?

So, if you don't want a separate thread, will you discuss it in this thread?

For example, do you consider the bible to be true, without falsehood, and if so, to what exent?

My intentions shouldn't affect your ability to answer the question.

In the post you just quoted, I asked fair and reasonable questions, you ignored them.

If you honestly can't or won't answer, here if not on another thread, say so and we'll drop it.

Yes I do believe you have. You obviously cannot empathize with his spirituality, and perhaps you never will?OK, so you didn't read the post... I'll try to explain:

If the goal was to empathise with Wik's beliefs about the morality of the Christian deity, his interpretation of the same, would be the final authority on the matter. Since the aim was to examine generally accepted Christian deity, the Bible is the best, objective source we have available - and it is what Wik's own beliefs are based on.

Basically; you've just presented a strawman yet aggain. Though I'll grant you, that you flog it quite well, it is none the less besides the point.He doesn't claim to be an authority at all and he even humbly apologized (in advance) for that.Interestingly, he didn't. He just usurped the authority of the Bible, in an attempt to create a strawman.

Is the Christian deity defined by Wik or by the Bible? If it is defined by Wik, then the Bible is irrelevant. If it is defined by the Bible, then Wik's personal interpretation & bias, is irrelevant.Actually, I do believe that you have indeed validated his observation in that regard.Yes well.. I can only offer to retype the above in a couple of other languagges, if you think it'll help.

OK, so you didn't read the post... I'll try to explain:

If the goal was to empathise with Wik's beliefs about the morality of the Christian deity, his interpretation of the same, would be the final authority on the matter.

Of course, to empathise is characteristically an emotional excercise, so its interesting that Wikaedia and CanuckHeaven use this word.

Empathy is certainly useful in understanding a particular behaviour, but any assertion dependent on it is obviously problematic.

I need to hit the sack.

CanuckHeaven, I'm going to busy with some new research for the next several months, starting tomorrow, and my nationstates time might be limited to little or nothing.

I will try to make time to respond to your questions that you said you wanted to discuss if you will also directly answer questions. Your last post indicated you weren't interested in a new thread.

If you aren't interested in any further discussion at all, say so, and I'll quit checking NS for your responses.

Wikaedia, you seem nice enough, although some of aspects of your mindset I find negative (and I imagine vice-versa). If you see faith purely as a "mystical" experience, excused from logical rigor, and present it as such so that people can consider it in that context, I see no problem with that (albeit, I belive that would exclude religious impetus from law or public policy, as it should be). If you want to make a response to my post, I'll try to check back and see it. Thanks.

Similization, I wish I'd know you better, or in person. Take care.

I need to hit the sack.

Similization, I wish I'd know you better, or in person. Take care.Likewise mate. Sweet dreams & whatnot :cool:

My intentions shouldn't affect your ability to answer the question.
Actually your intentions don't affect my ability to answer, but they do affect my desire to answer. You have mis-used and abused some answers that I have honestly and openly shared with you, only to have you try and gain some selfish benefit from them. I am sorry but I have found your replies in those instances as rather callous and cold-hearted. I am sorry if that offends your sensibilities but it is true.

Of course, to empathise is characteristically an emotional excercise, so its interesting that Wikaedia and CanuckHeaven use this word.

Empathy is certainly useful in understanding a particular behaviour, but any assertion dependent on it is obviously problematic.
Empathising is a useful tool. one that many lives are saved with. I would rather a leader that empathises with his troops than one that is only logical.
For being logic dependant is also problematic. many leaps in science were leaps of faith.

however, the main focus is Faith. everyone holds some form of Faith. even you.

you hold faith that the experiments done by previous scientists hold true. even tho, if given all sets of conditions without any external variable, will produce the same results. But it's also been proven that nature is not without external variables and God does work in mysterious ways.

I went through a time when I did question my faith in God. to the point where I did stop believing in him. however, one day, I did pray and ask God to reveal himself to me. and he did. I know this is a personal account, but I will disect this logically and feel free to ask for any clarifications.

Was it chance that my mother recieved an extra ticket for Benny Hinn's conference? maybe. but to prove that it was a ruse to get me to attend, several things needed to occure.
1) My mother had to know about my loss of Faith... impossible since she was living on another Island.
2) She could've bought those Tickets for me, but those tickets were hefty in price.
3) Everyone in my family could've been in on it, but no one knew since I was living on my own.
4) She could've just bought me a ticket... My mother is one that would not buy something unless she was sure that the recipiant would love it.
5) since I was driving her to the conference, she insisted that I attend. but my driving her was a last minute thing since my father got sick the night before. High fever.
6) entering, they noticed that she only ordered one ticket. but presented two. some questions about it was asked but in the end, they allowed me in without any more fuss. thus proving she didn't buy my ticket.

a freak series of chance or the work of God?

now as I was sitting there, bored just going through the motions and not paying attention to what was going on. Benny asked the crowed if they wanted to feel the power of God. at that moment, I suddenly remembered that prayer I did months ago... then I felt a force slam into my chest... pushing me back into my chair (I was standing at that time). and even tho for several long seconds I couldn't move, I was filled with a feeling of pure joy. I was laughing harder than I had in years.

I had ask God for proof, and he gave it to me... big time.

on the way home, my Mother then said she had a dream several nights ago, that I was to attend this conference. it wasn't untill that moment when we entered the auditorim, that she remembered that dream.

to this day, no matter how I look at it, there was no logical explination for what happened but a Religious one fits.

you may ask questions and I will answer them with the honest truth. and you can draw your own conclusions.

"Was it chance that my mother recieved an extra ticket for Benny Hinn's conference?"

My friends worked as local crew for a Benny Hinn rip off show. His stage hands put their feet behind people as he pushed them so they fell. No miracle there.
His security wanted to carry guns. This was in New Zealand, we don't have many guns here.
He also had young good looking girls in his quarters, which were segregated by a large covered tunnel that led directly to the stage of our town hall.
Everything about Mr Hinn stinks.
He rips of the blind religious, and although I feel this is a lesson they should learn. I guess they won't though.
Please post a documented case of Benny Hinn actually curing someone.
And no, christian studies of this are not conclusive.
I'd have more faith in Benny Hill.

Side note, he makes a killing in polynesia, why is this?
Why has Samoa banned The Devinci Code? It is after all, a fiction with a little fact.

"Was it chance that my mother recieved an extra ticket for Benny Hinn's conference?"

My friends worked as local crew for a Benny Hinn rip off show. His stage hands put their feet behind people as he pushed them so they fell. No miracle there.
His security wanted to carry guns. This was in New Zealand, we don't have many guns here.
He also had young good looking girls in his quarters, which were segregated by a large covered tunnel that led directly to the stage of our town hall.
Everything about Mr Hinn stinks.
He rips of the blind religious, and although I feel this is a lesson they should learn. I guess they won't though.
Please post a documented case of Benny Hinn actually curing someone.
And no, christian studies of this are not conclusive.
I'd have more faith in Benny Hill.

Side note, he makes a killing in polynesia, why is this?
Why has Samoa banned The Devinci Code? It is after all, a fiction with a little fact.

A Benny Hill fan! That lusty ol' bloke, I miss him! :)

"Was it chance that my mother recieved an extra ticket for Benny Hinn's conference?"

My friends worked as local crew for a Benny Hinn rip off show. His stage hands put their feet behind people as he pushed them so they fell. No miracle there.I believe there were several claims to that posted all over the net, now I am not defending nor am I supporting any healing claim made by Mr Hinn. I am only talking about what happened at that time. oh, and we had a clear view of the stage, so and the stage hands, as you call them stood several feet behind those people I saw. so unless they had feet the size of Goofy... :rolleyes:
His security wanted to carry guns. This was in New Zealand, we don't have many guns here.
He also had young good looking girls in his quarters, which were segregated by a large covered tunnel that led directly to the stage of our town hall.
Everything about Mr Hinn stinks.
He rips of the blind religious, and although I feel this is a lesson they should learn. I guess they won't though.
Please post a documented case of Benny Hinn actually curing someone.
And no, christian studies of this are not conclusive.
I'd have more faith in Benny Hill.

Side note, he makes a killing in polynesia, why is this?
Why has Samoa banned The Devinci Code? It is after all, a fiction with a little fact.
can't anwser those claims, but being that again, has nothing to do with my story... do you have any questions conserning my account, and my account only? or is this the standard ruse of "Logical" thinking and that is to latch on any and all forms of fallicy, even tho it has nothing to do with the event except being there? I never stated that I was hit by Benny Hinn's power, but by God's power.

So I take it there is nothing you want to ask about my personal experience?

Oh and what Samoa does is Samoa's business.

A Benny Hill fan! That lusty ol' bloke, I miss him! :)
why yes, I am a Benny Hill fan. I miss his word play and skits.

Actually your intentions don't affect my ability to answer, but they do affect my desire to answer. You have mis-used and abused some answers that I have honestly and openly shared with you, only to have you try and gain some selfish benefit from them. I am sorry but I have found your replies in those instances as rather callous and cold-hearted. I am sorry if that offends your sensibilities but it is true.

So, then, do you have no desire to answer my questions, even on this thread?

If so, state so plainly. Honestly, CanuckHeaven, can you at least give a direct answer to "Are you willing to give a direct answer?"

You say I'm "cold and callous", its my view than you can't cope with the implications of your own answers.

But if you don't want to discuss it anymore, say so directly and plainly, and we'll drop it. If you want to discuss it, a discussion includes being able to answer direct questions, even if you aren't prepared to cope with where that leads.

But it's also been proven that nature is not without external variables and God does work in mysterious ways.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying its been proven that God works in mysterious ways, or is the second clause a statement of belief?


I went through a time when I did question my faith in God. to the point where I did stop believing in him. however, one day, I did pray and ask God to reveal himself to me. and he did. I know this is a personal account, but I will disect this logically and feel free to ask for any clarifications.

Was it chance that my mother recieved an extra ticket for Benny Hinn's conference? maybe. but to prove that it was a ruse to get me to attend, several things needed to occure.
1) My mother had to know about my loss of Faith... impossible since she was living on another Island.
2) She could've bought those Tickets for me, but those tickets were hefty in price.
3) Everyone in my family could've been in on it, but no one knew since I was living on my own.
4) She could've just bought me a ticket... My mother is one that would not buy something unless she was sure that the recipiant would love it.
5) since I was driving her to the conference, she insisted that I attend. but my driving her was a last minute thing since my father got sick the night before. High fever.
6) entering, they noticed that she only ordered one ticket. but presented two. some questions about it was asked but in the end, they allowed me in without any more fuss. thus proving she didn't buy my ticket.

a freak series of chance or the work of God?

now as I was sitting there, bored just going through the motions and not paying attention to what was going on. Benny asked the crowed if they wanted to feel the power of God. at that moment, I suddenly remembered that prayer I did months ago... then I felt a force slam into my chest... pushing me back into my chair (I was standing at that time). and even tho for several long seconds I couldn't move, I was filled with a feeling of pure joy. I was laughing harder than I had in years.

I had ask God for proof, and he gave it to me... big time.

on the way home, my Mother then said she had a dream several nights ago, that I was to attend this conference. it wasn't untill that moment when we entered the auditorim, that she remembered that dream.

to this day, no matter how I look at it, there was no logical explination for what happened but a Religious one fits.

you may ask questions and I will answer them with the honest truth. and you can draw your own conclusions.

You are free to believe as you like. If you want believe God sent a dream to your mother and some "force" hit your chest, believe it. As you say, you use a religious explanation in substitute for a logical one. That's your choice.
Your story (or your experience, if you prefer to call it that) speaks for itself, we just don't hear the same things.

JuNii, my wife is a devout Christian (albeit she does not take the bible as the unaltered word of god). Some of my friends in research are religious.

So long as you don't use this "experience" to give reason to limit the rights of gays or that kind of thing (I have no reason to think you do), and you recognize the rights of anybody else to hold an Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist experience like what you've described as equally valid, great.

But my friend Nader, a practicing Muslim, has a story just as convincing as yours, and he doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah. So, to be swayed by yours, I'd have to be equally swayed by his, or Hamidou's, or any other religion, because they've all got these same experiences.

I believe there were several claims to that posted all over the net, now I am not defending nor am I supporting any healing claim made by Mr Hinn. I am only talking about what happened at that time. oh, and we had a clear view of the stage, so and the stage hands, as you call them stood several feet behind those people I saw. so unless they had feet the size of Goofy... :rolleyes:

can't anwser those claims, but being that again, has nothing to do with my story... do you have any questions conserning my account, and my account only? or is this the standard ruse of "Logical" thinking and that is to latch on any and all forms of fallicy, even tho it has nothing to do with the event except being there? I never stated that I was hit by Benny Hinn's power, but by God's power.

So I take it there is nothing you want to ask about my personal experience?

Oh and what Samoa does is Samoa's business.

Hypnotic effect?

As for your personal account, I have a personal testimony too. Recently I was in a deep fix. I was in so deep I couldn't see five minutes ahead of myself. I asked God why I was in such shit and asked him who to believe amidst so many competing angry Gods with omni-whatever abilities.

And then for a brief moment, I saw him. A young man in the night sky, wearing a white printed shirt and with two outstretched hands - A Porn mag in one, and a bar of Chocolate in the other.

I thought that in my most desperate hour, I would see God as the white-haired White Man Father-figure that all the Patriarchals believe, but no. Instead, He is exactly as I believe him to be.

So laugh if you wish, but at the end I know who is really Boss. And all the rest of you cannot possibly be right because I cannot possibly be wrong. I experienced it.

But my friend Nader, a practicing Muslim, has a story just as convincing as yours, and he doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah. So, to be swayed by yours, I'd have to be equally swayed by his, or Hamidou's, or any other religion, because they've all got these same experiences.
That's why you don't choose a religion based solely on others' testimony; you choose it based on your own beliefs and experience.


As for your personal account, I have a personal testimony too. Recently I was in a deep fix. I was in so deep I couldn't see five minutes ahead of myself. I asked God why I was in such shit and asked him who to believe amidst so many competing angry Gods with omni-whatever abilities.

And then for a brief moment, I saw him. A young man in the night sky, wearing a white printed shirt and with two outstretched hands - A Porn mag in one, and a bar of Chocolate in the other.

I thought that in my most desperate hour, I would see God as the white-haired White Man Father-figure that all the Patriarchals believe, but no. Instead, He is exactly as I believe him to be.

So laugh if you wish, but at the end I know who is really Boss. And all the rest of you cannot possibly be right because I cannot possibly be wrong. I experienced it.
Simply because that is how God is to you does not mean that he cannot appear differently to others. While I don't doubt that that is the way God is to you, and I take it seriously, it can be a dangerous thing to assume that you fully understand the nature of God. God appears to different people differently.

For me, God has long hair and wears shorts and a tye-dyed t-shirt.

Hypnotic effect? possible but not improbable. I was not watching the stage nor was I paying attention to what he was saying.

As for your personal account, I have a personal testimony too. Recently I was in a deep fix. I was in so deep I couldn't see five minutes ahead of myself. I asked God why I was in such shit and asked him who to believe amidst so many competing angry Gods with omni-whatever abilities.

And then for a brief moment, I saw him. A young man in the night sky, wearing a white printed shirt and with two outstretched hands - A Porn mag in one, and a bar of Chocolate in the other.

I thought that in my most desperate hour, I would see God as the white-haired White Man Father-figure that all the Patriarchals believe, but no. Instead, He is exactly as I believe him to be.

So laugh if you wish, but at the end I know who is really Boss. And all the rest of you cannot possibly be right because I cannot possibly be wrong. I experienced it.I'm not laughing. God Appeared to Moses as a burning bush, he appeared to others in many guises.

That's why you don't choose a religion based solely on others' testimony; you choose it based on your own beliefs and experience.
that's right. While I don't expect converts with my testimony, I do welcome serious discussion about it.

Empathising is a useful tool. one that many lives are saved with. I would rather a leader that empathises with his troops than one that is only logical.
For being logic dependant is also problematic. many leaps in science were leaps of faith.

however, the main focus is Faith. everyone holds some form of Faith. even you.Ok, let's kill this misconception once & for all, shall we?

Faith & the validity of it, is now what SC & I were trying to examine. Rather, it was the being in which you place this faith.

Sure, you may believe this being is sugar & spice & all things nice. However, if you claim the being is the one described in the Bible, then we can either consider the Bible to be the authority on this being, or we can consider you the authority on this being.

Both of us went with the Bible, as all of us can agree on the exact words of it (or them, if you prefer).

The conclusions we can draw from the Bible, is that the being in question is a genocidal torturer. I don't accept any explanations for such behaviour, especially not from a supposedly omni-potent being. Apparently, SC feels the same way.

If you believe genocide & torture on such a massive scale can be apologised, then I honestly believe you're quite insane & in urgent need of help. IF you don't believe your deity enbgaged & engages in these activities, then good for you - though it means that you obviously don't consider the Bible to be the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. I doubt anyone will fault you for that, least of all non-believers.But it's also been proven that nature is not without external variables and God does work in mysterious ways.I'm not sure I understand you. Please expand on this.to this day, no matter how I look at it, there was no logical explination for what happened but a Religious one fits.Suggestion perhaps? Mass hysteria? There's plenty of possible mundane explanations. To me, it seems you've simply decided that a not-so-mundane explanation suits you better.

Then again, it's possible your not-so-mundane explanation is the true one.

That's why you don't choose a religion based solely on others' testimony; you choose it based on your own beliefs and experience.

Solely?

Well, we were responding to a statement heavily emphasizing the testimony aspect, and it was demonstrated that there are people with equally sincere, heartfelt stories as the one presented, from all religions and those with no religion.

Thus the "testimony" aspect doesn't support any religion over the others, solely or in conjunction with anything else.

But if its perfectly valid for somebody choose Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism or anything else), its just as valid to have no religion, based on beliefs and personal experience.

Imagine there were ten people wearing the same official "mayor's uniform" for the town of Bool. Each man say's he's the mayor, though at most only one or none of them is the actual mayor.

If each of the ten people's uniform was identical and no more confirmable than the others, the uniform is now useless in determining whether any of these ten men are the mayor. So, its not really reasonable to say "You don't choose solely on the uniform". In this case, you shouldn't be using the uniform at all to make your choice.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying its been proven that God works in mysterious ways, or is the second clause a statement of belief?that nature is not without unknown variables.


You are free to believe as you like. If you want believe God sent a dream to your mother and some "force" hit your chest, believe it. As you say, you use a religious explanation in substitute for a logical one. That's your choice. and I am not forcing that choice on anyone. but as I stated, I do welcome serious discussion on it.
Your story (or your experience, if you prefer to call it that) speaks for itself, we just don't hear the same things. and what did you hear about it? just wondering.

JuNii, my wife is a devout Christian (albeit she does not take the bible as the unaltered word of god). Some of my friends in research are religious.

So long as you don't use this "experience" to give reason to limit the rights of gays or that kind of thing (I have no reason to think you do), and you recognize the rights of anybody else to hold an Islamic or Hindu or Buddhist experience like what you've described as equally valid, great. all this story is to me, is personal proof that not only God exsists, but he does answer prayers in his way, not ours. and in his time... not ours. but I have had other nudges to indicate certain things that I must research on my own first.
But my friend Nader, a practicing Muslim, has a story just as convincing as yours, and he doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah. So, to be swayed by yours, I'd have to be equally swayed by his, or Hamidou's, or any other religion, because they've all got these same experiences.as I said, this is my account and while I am excited for your friend Nader, I am glad to hear of it, because it kinda speaks about that nudging I've been getting lately.

Ok, let's kill this misconception once & for all, shall we?

Faith & the validity of it, is now what SC & I were trying to examine. Rather, it was the being in which you place this faith.


Think you got a typo there, you mean "not", yeah?

Sorry, I can't sleep so I"m going to post a bit more...

Religion is the opium of the masses.

Think you got a typo there, you mean "not", yeah?

Sorry, I can't sleep so I"m going to post a bit more...I think you might be right :p

Glad to hear you can't sleep. I'm stuck inside on this lovely day, and I'm bored to tears.

Now that we've voted God out of existence, can I have his stuff?

that nature is not without unknown variables.

I see. That statement is provable, but that bit about "god works in mysterious ways" was more of a faith thing.



and what did you hear about it? just wondering.

Not about it, in it. I've heard the same kind of experiences described by all kind of people, often in religion, sometimes in relation to alien-abduction, or various other kinds of things, all unprovable "personal experience".

They are just as heartfelt as your description. Its quite common in the human experience to need to feel those kinds of things. You feel it was true, I feel you need it to be true so you believe it. That's all. I believe you should be able to practice your religion, but its no more compelling than the many other similar stories.


all this story is to me, is personal proof that not only God exsists, but he does answer prayers in his way, not ours. and in his time... not ours. but I have had other nudges to indicate certain things that I must research on my own first.
as I said, this is my account and while I am excited for your friend Nader, I am glad to hear of it, because it kinda speaks about that nudging I've been getting lately.

Everybody's story, whether Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever, is their personal proof, their mayor's uniform. Nader's could be true, Tom Cruise's could be true, yours could be.

Religion is the opium of the masses.
Opiate. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Solely?

Well, we were responding to a statement heavily emphasizing the testimony aspect, and it was demonstrated that there are people with equally sincere, heartfelt stories as the one presented, from all religions and those with no religion.

Thus the "testimony" aspect doesn't support any religion over the others, solely or in conjunction with anything else.

But if its perfectly valid for somebody choose Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism or anything else), its just as valid to have no religion, based on beliefs and personal experience.

Imagine there were ten people wearing the same official "mayor's uniform" for the town of Bool. Each man say's he's the mayor, though at most only one or none of them is the actual mayor.

If each of the ten people's uniform was identical and no more confirmable than the others, the uniform is now useless in determining whether any of these ten men are the mayor. So, its not really reasonable to say "You don't choose solely on the uniform". In this case, you shouldn't be using the uniform at all to make your choice.

Poor analogy. It would be more accurate to compare it to several people saying they saw different persons wearing the mayor's uniform, and trying to decide which one of these people is correct. What I am saying is that the best bet is to think about which of them you've seen wearing it before and which one you think is best for the uniform.

Now that we've voted God out of existence, can I have his stuff?

Don't remember who said it, but it went something like:

"If God is real, all our doubt could not kill him. If God is not real, all our prayer's will not make him."

Unless that lunatic I met at a conference was right, and belief creates reality for whoever wills it hardest...

Unless that lunatic I met at a conference was right, and belief creates reality for whoever wills it hardest...

I recently read a short story based on the premise that reality is created by peoples' beliefs about it, and one day people decide they don't agree about the world.

Poor analogy. It would be more accurate to compare it to several people saying they saw different persons wearing the mayor's uniform, and trying to decide which one of these people is correct. What I am saying is that the best bet is to think about which of them you've seen wearing it before and which one you think is best for the uniform.

But they're all wearing it, and have been, you see? And believing it based on which you think is the best "fit" is precisely the arbitrary choice I"m talking about.

If the analogy was poor, it was in that it failed to convey the role of the uniform in the analogy.

You see, nobody's sincere religious personal testimony (be it Hindu or Muslim or whatever) is any more valid than anybody else's (in a general sense).

Thus, the uniforms fit everybody the same, nobody's is a better fit. And since all religions have their devoted witnessers going way back, everybody's been wearing it before.

So, if you understand the analogy, every uniform fits the same, whether the real mayor or not, and each person has been in possession of the uniform before, even the fake ones.

So, do you see where your method would ratify a fake mayor as easily as the real one?

Ok, let's kill this misconception once & for all, shall we?

Faith & the validity of it, is now what SC & I were trying to examine. Rather, it was the being in which you place this faith.

Sure, you may believe this being is sugar & spice & all things nice. However, if you claim the being is the one described in the Bible, then we can either consider the Bible to be the authority on this being, or we can consider you the authority on this being.

Both of us went with the Bible, as all of us can agree on the exact words of it (or them, if you prefer).

The conclusions we can draw from the Bible, is that the being in question is a genocidal torturer. I don't accept any explanations for such behaviour, especially not from a supposedly omni-potent being. Apparently, SC feels the same way.Ok, and from what I get from the bible is that God is stern, he is a disiplianrian, but he is also generous, giving and kind.
the problem is that you and SC are only concentrating on a part of what was written. not the whole.
Did he destroy whole cities? yes,
Did he spare whole cities? yes.
Did he demand sacrifice? yes,
Did he stop buring sacrifice? yes.
Did he spare races of people? yes
Has he provided for those who followed his laws? yes.
has he shown mercy? yes
Did he punnish those who did not keep his laws? yes.
Did he flood the world? well there was a flood.
Did he spare people from that flood? yes.
Did he promise to never flood the world with water? yes.
Has he kept that promise? so far, yes.
though his prohpets...
has he healed the sick? yes,
has he healed those who would percecute his and him? yes.
has he preached love and tolerance? yes.

If you believe genocide & torture on such a massive scale can be apologised, then I honestly believe you're quite insane & in urgent need of help. not and never will apologize for that. I am not responsible for God's actions. I am responsible for my actions and only my actions.
IF you don't believe your deity enbgaged & engages in these activities, then good for you - though it means that you obviously don't consider the Bible to be the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth. I doubt anyone will fault you for that, least of all non-believers.I do believe God did those things that you focus on, but he also more of the other things that show that he does care. however, I've never held the bible to be the Literal truth. The bible is a guide. to show you the choices you need to make to live a life pleasing to God. the stories and letters and poetry are examples of what other people did and the consequences of such actions.

I'm not sure I understand you. Please expand on this.Suggestion perhaps? Mass hysteria? There's plenty of possible mundane explanations. please provide methodology so that I can tell you what was present and what wasn't. go ahead and ask away, and I will provide as much as info as I can.
To me, it seems you've simply decided that a not-so-mundane explanation suits you better.while I did not research all forms of mass hypnosis. nor every form of Hypnotic Suggestion, there was none of the usual indications of such methods. no piped music, hymnals were sung by everyone, no unusual smells (chemical or pharmacudical methods of hallucenogens) if there are other (and I'm sure there was) please go and provide them and i'll provide as much detail.

Then again, it's possible your not-so-mundane explanation is the true one.that's what I'm leaning towards. but as I said, I will welcome any serious discussion about it. it was rather freaky now that I think about it.


actually, now that I do think about it... I need to see the Doctor to confirm something that hasn't bothered me since then...

I see. That statement is provable, but that bit about "god works in mysterious ways" was more of a faith thing.well it is a faith thang. :D

Not about it, in it. I've heard the same kind of experiences described by all kind of people, often in religion, sometimes in relation to alien-abduction, or various other kinds of things, all unprovable "personal experience". I see. well I did admit it was a personal experience (tho about a hundred of others also experienced it. but since I don't know who they were [outide my friends who did attend and were sitting somewhere else.]) so I don't expect [nor want] people flocking to me saying I am the Messaiah... actually it would be easier to pick out the crazy people then wouldn't it... :D

They are just as heartfelt as your description. Its quite common in the human experience to need to feel those kinds of things. You feel it was true, I feel you need it to be true so you believe it. That's all. I believe you should be able to practice your religion, but its no more compelling than the many other similar stories.and I believe that it is no more compelling. that's the thing about faith. It is a personal thing. close to the heart for the believer. if you do not believe in such things, then don't but do not try to take that away from others, that is what causes many strife between the two. and if you find your personal stance being threatened by someone "forcing religion down your throat" then calmly say so tactfully. most people, and I do say Most, will understand and back off. but do not deny nor ridicule them for something they find joy in. I hate Golf, but I will sit and listen to my friends recounting their tales of thier favorite courses.

Everybody's story, whether Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever, is their personal proof, their mayor's uniform. Nader's could be true, Tom Cruise's could be true, yours could be.and I celebrate their experiences. and far be it for me to deny them that. I share because I want to, if you want to listen, I thank you. If you found my story offensive, then I appologize.

Ok, and from what I get from the bible is that God is stern, he is a disiplianrian, but he is also generous, giving and kind.
the problem is that you and SC are only concentrating on a part of what was written. not the whole.
Did he destroy whole cities? yes,
Did he spare whole cities? yes.

JuNii, the same logic works for this:

Did Ted Bundy kill many women in Florida? Yes.
Did Ted Bundy kill zero women in Moscow? Yes.


Did he demand sacrifice? yes,
Did he stop buring sacrifice? yes.


Did Murder Inc. kill people all over New York? Yes.
Did they stop killing? Yes.


Did he spare races of people? yes

Internet protocol stops me from pointing out who else spared some races, and not others.


Has he provided for those who followed his laws? yes.
has he shown mercy? yes
Did he punnish those who did not keep his laws? yes.

Does Bob beat his wife when she doesn't do what she's told? Yes.
Does he show mercy when she does? Yes.


Did he flood the world? well there was a flood.
Did he spare people from that flood? yes.

So, if I kill millions and spare 8, I'm good. Have to remember that.

And to say, "well there was a flood" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? According to scripture, God is written to have sent it, on purpose, to kill.

Its like whipping out a rifle at a ball game, and the defense is "I didn't shoot the team I like"...

I recently read a short story based on the premise that reality is created by peoples' beliefs about it, and one day people decide they don't agree about the world.
that sound familiar...

didn't that happen in Discworld? where one person is chosen to enter the hub and stabelize the world. then one day a woman who's job it was to build planets was chosen...

and I celebrate their experiences. and far be it for me to deny them that. I share because I want to, if you want to listen, I thank you. If you found my story offensive, then I appologize.

JuNii, you don't have to apologize for giving your story. That's not my issue

My issue is, you're defending horrible things attributed to God by the Bible, excusing them.

Do you see what that mindset has led to in the world? The idea that a horrible thing is okay to be done, as long as "god wants it"?

There's much good in some religion. But this kind is dangerous.

JuNii, the same logic works for this:

Did Ted Bundy kill many women in Florida? Yes.
Did Ted Bundy kill zero women in Moscow? Yes.
Did Murder Inc. kill people all over New York? Yes.
Did they stop killing? Yes.
Internet protocol stops me from pointing out who else spared some races, and not others.
Does Bob beat his wife when she doesn't do what she's told? Yes.
Does he show mercy when she does? Yes.
and your point?

Ted Bundy was tried for his crimes, but the one main element missing is that he was tried by men for violating the rules of man. For his crimes against God, that is between Him and God. no one else.

What he does until he meets with God is up to him.

that goes for everyone. you, me, Hitler, even the President G.W. Bush.


So, if I kill millions and spare 8, I'm good. Have to remember that.bigger difference, you are not God.

And to say, "well there was a flood" is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? According to scripture, God is written to have sent it, on purpose, to kill. yes, and Historically, parts of the world was flooded at different times and places.

Its like whipping out a rifle at a ball game, and the defense is "I didn't shoot the team I like"...except you are breaking the laws of man by shooting people. so you will be punnished according by the rules of man. God will hold you accountable when you stand before Him and you will be punnished according to God's law.

If taken literally, the events in the Bible are evidence enough to convict God in the World Court of crimes against humanity.

didn't that happen in Discworld? where one person is chosen to enter the hub and stabelize the world. then one day a woman who's job it was to build planets was chosen...
I haven't read Discworld, it wasn't that one...

My issue is, you're defending horrible things attributed to God by the Bible, excusing them.

Do you see what that mindset has led to in the world? The idea that a horrible thing is okay to be done, as long as "god wants it"?
I'm going to be heretical here:

First of all, we all have seen that people do horrible things, and vindicate those deeds by claiming that they are doing God's will. We need look no farther than Hezbollah or al-Qaeda or the Inquisition for that.

Second of all, people have been doing that for as long as anyone can remember. Why shouldn't the writers of Scripture have had the same affliction? They were human, and humans are wrong so often it's scary.

and your point?

Ted Bundy was tried for his crimes, but the one main element missing is that he was tried by men for violating the rules of man. For his crimes against God, that is between Him and God. no one else.

What he does until he meets with God is up to him.

that goes for everyone. you, me, Hitler, even the President G.W. Bush.
bigger difference, you are not God.

My point is exactly revealed by your post. That you believe horrible things are okay, if its for "god". That "God" can justify horrible things. Do you see the effect of that belief? Where it then leads, what it then allows?


yes, and Historically, parts of the world was flooded at different times and places.

except you are breaking the laws of man by shooting people. so you will be punnished according by the rules of man. God will hold you accountable when you stand before Him and you will be punnished according to God's law.

Isn't it also in God's law not to kill people? But of course, its not "killing" if its for god, some of the religious might say. When God take's a life, or orders a life taken as in other parts, its okay, they say. When a life is take for "god's will", that's always justified.

Do you not see that mentality is clear in what you're saying?

JuNii, you don't have to apologize for giving your story. That's not my issue

My issue is, you're defending horrible things attributed to God by the Bible, excusing them.I am not exscusing them, neither am I judging them. I am, however, showing you that there are more instances in the bible when God has proven his love and generosity. something you never aknowledged.

Do you see what that mindset has led to in the world? The idea that a horrible thing is okay to be done, as long as "god wants it"?I've always been skeptical of anyone who says "God Wants It" Up to, including and going further than Pat Robertson and everyone else. I've never advocated blind faith nor Blind Skepticsism.

There's much good in some religion. But this kind is dangerous.which is why, if you read my posts, I usually suggest prayer while reading the bible.

Ok, and from what I get from the bible is that God is stern, he is a disiplianrian, but he is also generous, giving and kind.
the problem is that you and SC are only concentrating on a part of what was written. not the whole. So basically, for a being with infinite options, it's acceptable, even worthy of praise, that it kills & tortures?

If you truely mean that.. You scare me.Did he destroy whole cities? yes, Was another course of action possible? Yes.Did he spare whole cities? yes. So did Stalin & so have I. Does that make us benevolent? Not in the slightest. Does it excuse levelling entire cities full of sentient beings? Not at all.Did he demand sacrifice? yes, Was another course of action possible? YesDid he stop buring sacrifice? yes.Does this excuse demanding sacrifice? Not at all.Did he spare races of people? yesHave I? Yes. Did Pol Pot? Yes. Is there something inherently benevolent about refraining from killing people without cause? Not at all.Has he provided for those who followed his laws? yes.Oh realy?has he shown mercy? yesTo whom?Did he punnish those who did not keep his laws? yes.Did people have any influence on these laws? No.Did he flood the world? well there was a flood.No there wasn't, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume the Bible is right.Did he spare people from that flood? yes.By people, do you mean he murdered all but a single family? Yes.Did he promise to never flood the world with water? yes.Would you consider me benign if I promise not to detonate nuclear devices among civilians? I doubt it.Has he kept that promise? so far, yes.Is there any compelling reason to take his word for it? Not to the very best of my knowledge.though his prohpets...
has he healed the sick? yes,Has he created the sick? Yes.has he healed those who would percecute his and him? yes.Does he percecute those that fail to abide by his every whim? With such extreme prejudice that no human being can ever rival him.has he preached love and tolerance? yes.Has he also preached intolerance, injustice, murder, slavery etc, etc.? Yes.not and never will apologize for that. I am not responsible for God's actions. I am responsible for my actions and only my actions.
I do believe God did those things that you focus on, but he also more of the other things that show that he does care. however, I've never held the bible to be the Literal truth. The bible is a guide. to show you the choices you need to make to live a life pleasing to God. the stories and letters and poetry are examples of what other people did and the consequences of such actions.Let me ask you this: If I had done the same things God apparently have, would you commend me for it? Would you be indifferent? Or would you seek to prevent me from causing harm to my fellow human beings?please provide methodology so that I can tell you what was present and what wasn't. go ahead and ask awayPerhaps later JuNii.

My point is exactly revealed by your post. That you believe horrible things are okay, if its for "god". That "God" can justify horrible things. Do you see the effect of that belief? Where it then leads, what it then allows?

Isn't it also in God's law not to kill people? But of course, its not "killing" if its for god, some of the religious might say. When God take's a life, or orders a life taken as in other parts, its okay, they say. When a life is take for "god's will", that's always justified.

Do you not see that mentality is clear in what you're saying?

What JuNii is saying is not that 'bad things are OK if you claim God told you to do them', which is what you're interpreting it as. He is simply saying that the power of judgment is not given to you or me or him; it is God's alone.

Would you consider me benign if I promise not to detonate nuclear devices among civilians? I doubt it.
That is because you are human. People don't trust each other, much of the time. Personally, I'm more prone to trust a promise made by God than a promise made by a person that I don't really even know (of course I'm not saying that you're going to nuke people, but you understand my point).

I myself do not believe that such a thing as the Flood ever physically happened. But the point of the story, the moral of the story, is that God loves the world and is not going to destroy it [add "again" here if you are a literalist"].

I'm going to be heretical here:

First of all, we all have seen that people do horrible things, and vindicate those deeds by claiming that they are doing God's will. We need look no farther than Hezbollah or al-Qaeda or the Inquisition for that.

Second of all, people have been doing that for as long as anyone can remember. Why shouldn't the writers of Scripture have had the same affliction? They were human, and humans are wrong so often it's scary.


I believe they had precisely that same affliction. And I believe they were human, and they were wrong, as you describe.

So when people say they believe that scripture, and obey the God it describes, they reveal something about themselves.

Those who take this part or that of the bible to be true, only the parts that support their beliefs, can certainly do that, but then you'd have to believe the holy books from other religions that support the same things.

Now, rather than practicing a religion,they're then picking ideas from all religions, and using the one's you like, but they can no longer point to one religion as more valid.

My point is exactly revealed by your post. That you believe horrible things are okay, if its for "god". That "God" can justify horrible things. Do you see the effect of that belief? Where it then leads, what it then allows?and read my posts again, I've never exscused anything. I never Judged anything either. I only pointed out facts that you never aknowledged.

I don't claim to judge God. You can claim to, and when the time comes for you to stand in his presence, you can accuse him all you want. that is a choice you can make.

Isn't it also in God's law not to kill people? But of course, its not "killing" if its for god, some of the religious might say. When God take's a life, or orders a life taken as in other parts, its okay, they say. When a life is take for "god's will", that's always justified.actually it's Murder that is not allowed.

Do you not see that mentality is clear in what you're saying?what I am saying is that we, (as men) cannot judge in God's stead. we cannot damn anyone nor can we absolve anyone. the Judgement for breaking God's Laws has always been and will always be between the sinner and God.

man's laws however is free for us to decide and do with as we please.

I am not exscusing them, neither am I judging them. I am, however, showing you that there are more instances in the bible when God has proven his love and generosity. something you never aknowledged.

JuNii, I acknowledged them several times in my post, comparing them to a man who beat his wife one day, and not the next. You see, a being who does terrible things and kind things both, as you say, has done terrible things.
Whether you agree with me or not, do you at least understand that my analogy included and acknowledged the premise of a being who sometimes does non-horrible things?

Suppose the wifebeater gives her a nice necklace the day after. It excuses nothing.

A person doing something horrible on Tuesday cannot defend themselves by pointing out that they did something nice on Monday or Wednesday.

I've always been skeptical of anyone who says "God Wants It" Up to, including and going further than Pat Robertson and everyone else. I've never advocated blind faith nor Blind Skepticsism.

which is why, if you read my posts, I usually suggest prayer while reading the bible.

Why? Does "God Want It?" If not, why should I?

bigger difference, you are not God.I see. So "insane murderous bastard" is a label reserved for man..

Know what JuNii? If I truely have free will, then I have every right to participate in the creation of divine decree, and if your deity isn't a merciless dictator, it will submit to the same rules.

But your God isn't like that. It isn't just, but very powerful megalomaniac.

and read my posts again, I've never exscused anything. I never Judged anything either. I only pointed out facts that you never aknowledged.

But you have. You excuse God as unjudgable. Well, if I can't judge him negatively for his actions, why can you judge him positively?

Or is he only judgable in ways you agree with?


I don't claim to judge God. You can claim to, and when the time comes for you to stand in his presence, you can accuse him all you want. that is a choice you can make.

You've judged him as generous, loving, et cetera. So, evidently, you can judge him, as long as the results of that judgement fit what you want to believe, even if they ignore the accusations (and if the Bible were true, admissions of guilt) in the book people use to define God.


actually it's Murder that is not allowed.

In some people's estimate, sending an agent (or angel) to kill small children to get at a political leader (like a pharoah), is considered Murder.


what I am saying is that we, (as men) cannot judge in God's stead. we cannot damn anyone nor can we absolve anyone. the Judgement for breaking God's Laws has always been and will always be between the sinner and God.

man's laws however is free for us to decide and do with as we please.

Again, you've judged God positively quite a bit, because that judgement fits what you want to believe. Anything that suggest other than what you want to believe, well, that's unknowable and mysterious...

At one time, God's Laws required the killing of a woman who failed to scream while being raped. The people then believed it as fervently as what you believe, and when the woman's parent's came around, I imagine they said much of what you say...

What JuNii is saying is not that 'bad things are OK if you claim God told you to do them', which is what you're interpreting it as. He is simply saying that the power of judgment is not given to you or me or him; it is God's alone.


Well, we'll have to disagree on interpretation.

But just remember, having no judgement precludes having good judgement.

I can and will judge the slaughter of children to get at a political leader to be wrong. I don't like it when my political leaders do it, I don't like it when people will obey a god who they believe did it (whether that god is real or not).

In the end, JuNii is trying to come up with some reason, any reason, for those things to be okay to do, even if its just "some reason known only to God".

And that mentality is at work in the world today.

Those who take this part or that of the bible to be true, only the parts that support their beliefs, can certainly do that, but then you'd have to believe the holy books from other religions that support the same things.
The particular brand of Christianity which I subscribe to, Methodism, believes in using four tools in theology: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Thus there is some basis for coming to a decision about which parts of the Bible are to be taken which way, and it's not totally arbitrary.

And by the way, everybody has a tendency to pick and choose the evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs. Scientists do it, too-- just look at the "studies" that drug companies do to "test" the reliability of thier product. And I know you'll probably point out that scientists have double-blind experiments, the scientific method, computers, and a host of other things to ensure the objectivity of a study. But even that doesn't stop people from deciding what they believe and then supporting it with anything that seems to agree with them.

Know what JuNii? If I truely have free will, then I have every right to participate in the creation of divine decree, and if your deity isn't a merciless dictator, it will submit to the same rules.
If you were to dictate God's will, that would eliminate God's free will. It's a bizarre point that you're attempting to make. Your free will covers your own actions. All of them. Nothing else.

You've judged him as generous, loving, et cetera. So, evidently, you can judge him, as long as the results of that judgement fit what you want to believe, even if they ignore the accusations (and if the Bible were true, admissions of guilt) in the book people use to define God.
Come on, quit trying to twist words. See, you're taking things and making them support what you already believe. He doesn't "judge" God to be generous, etc., in the sense that you are using the word. He does, however, "see God as" generous and so on.

So basically, for a being with infinite options, it's acceptable, even worthy of praise, that it kills & tortures?I am saying it's not our place to judge Him.

If you truely mean that.. You scare me.actually, you should be thanking me, for I am telling you to take it up with the big man. I will not stand in your way, unfortunatly, I also feel it is not in my place to be at your back for that.
Was another course of action possible? Yes.actually, no. untill the time that he did destroy those cities, he did give them every chance to repent. some have and they were spared.
So did Stalin & so have I. Does that make us benevolent? Not in the slightest. Does it excuse levelling entire cities full of sentient beings? Not at all.Is Stalin God? are you? yes, you can destroy whole cities but you will be tried by the courts of man... As Jesus was back then. and when you stand before God, you will again face judgement.
Was another course of action possible? Yesno there wasn't and there still isn't Does this excuse demanding sacrifice? Not at all.he still want's some form of sacrifice, it's only the Burnt ones that he removed. Have I? Yes. Did Pol Pot? Yes. Is there something inherently benevolent about refraining from killing people without cause? Not at all. yes there is... Thou shalt not commit Murder.Oh realy? To whom?read the bible and don't concentrate on the killings. Did people have any influence on these laws? No.why would they, they're his laws. the House can make the Rules, God can make his laws. the Government can make their laws.
No there wasn't, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume the Bible is right.
By people, do you mean he murdered all but a single family? Yes.actually there are signs in the Bible that he spared more than that.
Would you consider me benign if I promise not to detonate nuclear devices among civilians? I doubt it. actually yes, but would you keep your word? Is there any compelling reason to take his word for it? Not to the very best of my knowledge.has he flooded the world with water? I don't remember reading anything like that happening... Has he created the sick? Yes.he also set rules that help prevent illnesses also.
Does he percecute those that fail to abide by his every whim? With such extreme prejudice that no human being can ever rival him.no, we (as Humans) used the death penalty. we used biological warfare, we even incarcerate people for the rest of their lives in cages.
Has he also preached intolerance, injustice, murder, slavery etc, etc.? Yes.show examples from the New Testiment please... that support this. Let me ask you this: If I had done the same things God apparently have, would you commend me for it? Would you be indifferent? Or would you seek to prevent me from causing harm to my fellow human beings?if you have done everything God has (speaking metaphorically, since you cannot create a world.) I would commend you for those things that don't violate the laws of man, but I won't protect you from those that would enforce the laws of man that you violated.
Perhaps later JuNii.later.

The particular brand of Christianity which I subscribe to, Methodism, believes in using four tools in theology: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Thus there is some basis for coming to a decision about which parts of the Bible are to be taken which way, and it's not totally arbitrary.

I don't believe there is any "reason" that can justify the murder of children to get at a pharoah. That religious people look for one is precisely the mindset I seek to reveal.


And by the way, everybody has a tendency to pick and choose the evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs. Scientists do it, too-- just look at the "studies" that drug companies do to "test" the reliability of thier product. And I know you'll probably point out that scientists have double-blind experiments, the scientific method, computers, and a host of other things to ensure the objectivity of a study. But even that doesn't stop people from deciding what they believe and then supporting it with anything that seems to agree with them.

Yes, some unethical or dogmatic scientists do that. Do you not see that its equally bad when they do it too?


If you were to dictate God's will, that would eliminate God's free will. It's a bizarre point that you're attempting to make. Your free will covers your own actions. All of them. Nothing else.

Its relgious people that claim to state God's will (althought they call it "revealing" or "testifying"). I only point out the implications of what they state.

I haven't "dictated" God's will, I don't even believe in any particular God or other. I thought I'd made that clear.

JuNii, I acknowledged them several times in my post, comparing them to a man who beat his wife one day, and not the next. You see, a being who does terrible things and kind things both, as you say, has done terrible things.and you do not see the difference between man and God. it is those people who do not see that difference that holds more danger than one like me.
Whether you agree with me or not, do you at least understand that my analogy included and acknowledged the premise of a being who sometimes does non-horrible things?no it does not. for there is a difference between Man and God.

Suppose the wifebeater gives her a nice necklace the day after. It excuses nothing. no it doesn't for that wife beater is not God.

A person doing something horrible on Tuesday cannot defend themselves by pointing out that they did something nice on Monday or Wednesday. that is true, but then that is for the Law to decide.

Why? Does "God Want It?" If not, why should I?Because I fear your interpretations of the Bible, you only concentrate on your interpretations of the Law and assume a posistion that is not yours.

I see. So "insane murderous bastard" is a label reserved for man..Never heard God use it... even on the devil. :p

Know what JuNii? If I truely have free will, then I have every right to participate in the creation of divine decree, and if your deity isn't a merciless dictator, it will submit to the same rules.you have that right to decree it, and you also have that right to try and enforce it. I suggest you don't persue that, but ultimately, the choice is yours.

But your God isn't like that. It isn't just, but very powerful megalomaniac.if that is your view of God, and you refuse all other viewpoints, then be at peace with that view and cherish it for it is not mine, but yours.

Come on, quit trying to twist words. See, you're taking things and making them support what you already believe. He doesn't "judge" God to be generous, etc., in the sense that you are using the word. He does, however, "see God as" generous and so on.

I don't feel I'm twisting anything. If you can't judge somebody guilty, you can't judge them not guilty.

You're the one's playing word games, but if you wish...

If JuNii can "see" the parts of "God" or the bible that he wants to believe, why can I not "see" and point out the parts that he tries to justify, the horrific parts?

How about this. The mindset of "God has reasons for ordering terrible things to be done, we just don't 'see' them" is also necessary to expose.

I haven't "dictated" God's will, I don't even believe in any particular God or other. I thought I'd made that clear.
I was replying to a post by Similization.
If JuNii can "see" the parts of "God" or the bible that he wants to believe, why can I not "see" and point out the parts that he tries to justify, the horrific parts?
You can, but as you are so fond of pointing out, we don't have to believe you.


Does it seem to anyone else like this is going around in circles? Curie and others repeat the same stories from the Bible about people being smited and slaughtered, then people like JuNii and CanuckHeaven and Corneliu respond and then it starts over. Yes, you've shown that if one interprets the entire Bible literally, then God has done things that we consider to be morally reprehensible. And then someone tries to compare it to Stalin-- who was, by the way, an athiest, meaning that atrocities are not a phenomenon caused by the "religious mindset"-- and attempts to equate God to humans, which is an amazingly strange tack for an argument.

and you do not see the difference between man and God. it is those people who do not see that difference that holds more danger than one like me.
no it does not. for there is a difference between Man and God.

no it doesn't for that wife beater is not God.


There it is. Keep it coming. Your justification: "Its God, that can be done if its His will".

Those who don't see your "difference", who would refuse to go along with or accept something horrible, whether from "God" or not, are the safer ones.


that is true, but then that is for the Law to decide.

Because I fear your interpretations of the Bible, you only concentrate on your interpretations of the Law and assume a posistion that is not yours.

According to the bible, the position of ordering the killing of children (whether you wan't to call it "murder" or "punishment" or whatever) belongs to your God.

I just want to make sure people know that, and that your response is "there is a difference between man and God", which clearly shows, whether you own up to it or not, that you ratify terrible things if its ordered by "God".

Anyone wanna have a theological debate cus Im a christian and Im feeling up for one.:D

Sometimes I feel like this:headbang: but there just something about church which makes me feel this:)

I met my first girl freind at church we had a realationship for 7 months which compared to everyone else is quite long.There was something that kept me from going astray and the only reason I can think of was of my Christian infulence.

I have read a lot of theological books(probably about 15) and Im only 12!!

i have asked a lot of questions and im surprised that i answered my freinds theolog questions.

Fire away with your questions cus IM READY;) ;) ;) ;)

actually,
What JuNii is saying is not that 'bad things are OK if you claim God told you to do them', which is what you're interpreting it as. He is simply saying that the power of judgment is not given to you or me or him; it is God's alone.Anglachel and Anguirel is right.
I don't feel I'm twisting anything. If you can't judge somebody guilty, you can't judge them not guilty.

You're the one's playing word games, but if you wish...

If JuNii can "see" the parts of "God" or the bible that he wants to believe, why can I not "see" and point out the parts that he tries to justify, the horrific parts?

How about this. The mindset of "God has reasons for ordering terrible things to be done, we just don't 'see' them" is also necessary to expose.I do see the whole. I've aknowledged the "horrable atrocities" that He has done. but I don't judge Him for it. you however have not seen the generosity and care He as also shown and you do lay judgement on Him.

Anyone wanna have a theological debate cus Im a christian and Im feeling up for one.:D

Sometimes I feel like this:headbang: but there just something about church which makes me feel this:)

I met my first girl freind at church we had a realationship for 7 months which compared to everyone else is quite long.There was something that kept me from going astray and the only reason I can think of was of my Christian infulence.

I have read a lot of theological books(probably about 15) and Im only 12!!

i have asked a lot of questions and im surprised that i answered my freinds theolog questions.

Fire away with your questions cus IM READY;) ;) ;) ;)

You may not realize what you've gotten yourself into...:rolleyes:

I was replying to a post by Similization.


Sorry, thought that it was directed at me.


Does it seem to anyone else like this is going around in circles? Curie and others repeat the same stories from the Bible about people being smited and slaughtered, then people like JuNii and CanuckHeaven and Corneliu respond and then it starts over.

Lots of warning signs are cyclical. My questions are to get JuNii/CH/Corneliu responses, and their responses reveal the mindset I want revealed. Its not deceptive; they have a right to state their beliefs, I want people to see their beliefs. My questions just show more of their beliefs.


Yes, you've shown that if one interprets the entire Bible literally, then God has done things that we consider to be morally reprehensible. And then someone tries to compare it to Stalin-- who was, by the way, an athiest, meaning that atrocities are not a phenomenon caused by the "religious mindset"-- and attempts to equate God to humans, which is an amazingly strange tack for an argument.

I'm glad I've shown that.

Stalin used a similar trick, substituting a political ideology for religion. Both justified their actions with their "higher cause". The dynamic is equally bad when used by politicians, or business people, or whoever.

You may not realize what you've gotten yourself into...:rolleyes:

Oh really

What makes u fink that???

HEllo anyone there???????

Oh really

What makes u fink that???
A great number of people on this forum will harshly criticise you.

There it is. Keep it coming. Your justification: "Its God, that can be done if its His will". I never said that. you did. I've said all that I've wanted to say. but if you want to put words in my mouth and speak for me... :rolleyes:

Those who don't see your "difference", who would refuse to go along with or accept something horrible, whether from "God" or not, are the safer ones. go ahead and hold God accountable, that is your right within Free Will. I will not stop you, but I also will not assist you.

According to the bible, the position of ordering the killing of children (whether you wan't to call it "murder" or "punishment" or whatever) belongs to your God.

I just want to make sure people know that, and that your response is "there is a difference between man and God", which clearly shows, whether you own up to it or not, that you ratify terrible things if its ordered by "God".and you said you were NOT twisting things to suit your purpose?!?

actually,
Anglachel and Anguirel is right.
I do see the whole. I've aknowledged the "horrable atrocities" that He has done. but I don't judge Him for it. you however have not seen the generosity and care He as also shown and you do lay judgement on Him.

So, you feel generosity and care make "horrible atrocities" okay.

I'm not trying to be rude, but that mindset is widely documented as very common in a number of situations. Mostly domestic violence, substance abuse, and other situations where an atrocity wants to get out of being judged.

You don't judge him for it. He's done horrible things and you don't judge him for it. Precisely the mentality I wanted to show.

What makes u think that???
Look how long this topic has been running. I guarantee that a topic like this has the potential to keep going for as long as this forum is up, assuming another one doesn't usurp the place of theological debate.

Sometimes I think I'm the only one whose mind has been changed at all by this... I certainly hope not.

Saint Curie, I would like to point out a dissonant part of your argument. JuNii's position is that whatever God has done, directly, is not for JuNii or anyone else to judge. He is not extending that (as far as I can tell) to human actions which are "justified" by claiming that it is God's will.

Why would people harshly critise me???

Give moi some raisions.

Anyone wanna have a theological debate cus Im a christian and Im feeling up for one.:D

Sometimes I feel like this:headbang: but there just something about church which makes me feel this:)

I met my first girl freind at church we had a realationship for 7 months which compared to everyone else is quite long.There was something that kept me from going astray and the only reason I can think of was of my Christian infulence.

I have read a lot of theological books(probably about 15) and Im only 12!!

i have asked a lot of questions and im surprised that i answered my freinds theolog questions.

Fire away with your questions cus IM READY;) ;) ;) ;)go read the last few pages and jump right in.

I wish you luck and hope you have the patience of Job.

:D

Why would people harshly critise me???

Give moi some raisions.
read the thread. you'll find your answers.

Why would people harshly critise me???

Give moi some raisions.

Well, because you're 12, willing to defend religion in the face of many Atheists, and we're all a bunch of bastards here.

Look how long this topic has been running. I guarantee that a topic like this has the potential to keep going for as long as this forum is up, assuming another one doesn't usurp the place of theological debate.



Sometimes I think I'm the only one whose mind has been changed at all by this... I certainly hope not.
oh? haven't read from the beginning... (and I thank you for your support.) :D

what what changed? If you don't mind my asking.

Yay ATHEIST BARSTARDS

Yay ATHEIST BARSTARDS
I see cannon fodder here.

kid, I suggest you read the stickies up at the top of the forum first...

Yay ATHEIST BARSTARDS
Hey! My parents were married... :mad:

I never said that. you did. I've said all that I've wanted to say. but if you want to put words in my mouth and speak for me... :rolleyes:


JuNii, when the terrible things were pointed out, you simply pointed out that it was God, that was your answer, whether you can admit to it or not.


go ahead and hold God accountable, that is your right within Free Will. I will not stop you, but I also will not assist you.

JuNii, again, I don't believe in any particular God. What I'm getting accountability for is the mentality that an atrocity attributed to God can be excused (or addressed, if you prefer) by saying "Man is not the same as God".


and you said you were NOT twisting things to suit your purpose?!?

Your answers stand on their own JuNii. I have no doubt we disagree on what your answers show, but you've revealed what I wanted to see revealed.

Saint Curie, I would like to point out a dissonant part of your argument. JuNii's position is that whatever God has done, directly, is not for JuNii or anyone else to judge. He is not extending that (as far as I can tell) to human actions which are "justified" by claiming that it is God's will.

Well, my intended audience are those who can understand that what "God has done" (or ordered to be done, in a lot of the Old Testament) and those human actions that are "justified" by claiming God's will are the same thing.

I realize you don't believe they're the same thing, and that's fine.

Remember, I don't believe in any particular God, so I don't believe he's done anything directly.

But people who believe the bible is totally true believe he has done these terrible things, and if they fail to judge them as wrong and be willing to say no, they are easy prey for people who claim's to know God's will.

Don't you see? Its the belief that God has done these things (not the premise itself), and the willingness to accept it, that's dangerous.

Okay, I'm starting a big project tomorrow, and I really need to sleep.

I'm very sorry if I don't get back to reply to everyone, a 4 month long project starts tomorrow, and my NS time will be curtailed or eliminated. If I don't reply, its not because I don't consider your response worth it.


JuNii, Anglachel, thanks for the talk, take care.

Sim, I'll miss you.

JuNii, when the terrible things were pointed out, you simply pointed out that it was God, that was your answer, whether you can admit to it or not. yes, I admitted he did those things. you never admitted the good that he did.
do I accept that HE did those things, yes.
do I judge him for what he did? no.

JuNii, again, I don't believe in any particular God. What I'm getting accountability for is the mentality that an atrocity attributed to God can be excused (or addressed, if you prefer) by saying "Man is not the same as God". but you are comparing God to Man. for one that doesn't believe in any God, I can see that fallicy, and while I don't condemn you for it, I am trying to correct you. I do not Judge God. I do not judge God by man's standards. In other words, if you were to hand me a ballot with the choices Guilty, not Guilty and Abstain, I would check Abstain. that is my choice and My use of Free Will. I do not force you to change your viewpoints (that is not my intent) but I will argue my viewpoints. If you want to put God on trial, go right ahead. but rememeber, according to Man's Law, he is entitled to defend himself.

Your answers stand on their own JuNii. I have no doubt we disagree on what your answer show, but you've revealed what I wanted to see revealed.and I have no control over what you choose to see. However, I will not choose to speak for you nor will I say my interpretation of what you say is right. that's why in all my debates, I do ask for clarification when I suspect misunderstanding on my part.

Okay, I'm starting a big project tomorrow, and I really need to sleep.

I'm very sorry if I don't get back to reply to everyone, a 4 month long project starts tomorrow, and my NS time will be curtailed or eliminated. If I don't reply, its not because I don't consider your response worth it.


JuNii, Anglachel, thanks for the talk, take care.

Sim, I'll miss you.gotta admit, that was fun. see ya SC and good luck on that project.

Lots of warning signs are cyclical. My questions are to get JuNii/CH/Corneliu responses, and their responses reveal the mindset I want revealed. Its not deceptive; they have a right to state their beliefs, I want people to see their beliefs. My questions just show more of their beliefs.

To what end dost thou show these beliefs? To sway the hearts of the impressionable, undecided out there? They are few. You cannot change someone's mind for the better if you are there only to change their mind. If you are adversarial towards their beliefs (not that I can say you are wrong to be so) then they will deepen the moat they have built up around themselves.

I have heard communists "exposing" the dangers of the reactionary capitalist mindset, I have heard liberals "exposing" the dangers of conservativism and vice versa, I have heard athiests "exposing" certain 'religious mindsets', I have heard Christians "exposing" the badness of Islam, and never has it changed anyone's mind. The people who agree, agree, and those who disagree, disagree.


P.S.: Hasta luego, Santa Curie.

Well, my intended audience are those who can understand that what "God has done" (or ordered to be done, in a lot of the Old Testament) and those human actions that are "justified" by claiming God's will are the same thing. should've clarified that. and if you look back, My statements still work. those that break Man's Laws are held accountable by man. those that break God's laws are held accountable by God. so if Jon Jones says God told him to build a nuclear bomb and remove Quebec... then Man will try him for the destruction of Quebec. but when He stands before God, then that is between him and God.

I realize you don't believe they're the same thing, and that's fine.

Remember, I don't believe in any particular God, so I don't believe he's done anything directly. and one of the difficulties when debating with such a difference in beliefs.

But people who believe the bible is totally true believe he has done these terrible things, and if they fail to judge them as wrong and be willing to say no, they are easy prey for people who claim's to know God's will. that is a generalization. sterotyping if you will.

Don't you see? Its the belief that God has done these things (not the premise itself), and the willingness to Judge Him for it, that's dangerous.bolding is my change. This statement I will agree with. Note that Judging can imply either a Guilty or Not Guilty verdict.

To what end dost thou show these beliefs? To sway the hearts of the impressionable, undecided out there? They are few. You cannot change someone's mind for the better if you are there only to change their mind. If you are adversarial towards their beliefs (not that I can say you are wrong to be so) then they will deepen the moat they have built up around themselves.

I have heard communists "exposing" the dangers of the reactionary capitalist mindset, I have heard liberals "exposing" the dangers of conservativism and vice versa, I have heard athiests "exposing" certain 'religious mindsets', I have heard Christians "exposing" the badness of Islam, and never has it changed anyone's mind. The people who agree, agree, and those who disagree, disagree.


P.S.: Hasta luego, Santa Curie.
Yeah, but it's fun to argue...or at least it is for me. Although I agree, I'm an atheist and absolutly nothing will change my mind about that, short of God himself coming to talk to me and prove his own existance by causing miracles such as turning me into a llama. But the chances of that happening are non-existant. I've already made up my mind about this and no person can change it, although they try so very hard. *sigh* Stop trying to save my soul!

and thus comes understanding.

Similization and Saint Curie, the Missunderstanding came with the word Accept.

Accept has many meanings, the most common form is to Aknowledge, the definition you were using was Exscuse. the word you should've used was Exscuse, or even "should he be found guilty of those crimes."

that is why I replied "I aknowledge those evil deeds but I also Aknowledge the good." I was not saying that the good outweighs the bad.

but I also was saying I do not Judge God.

Man is a different thing altogether. Man is subject to Man's law. and we can judge man according to those laws. but Man is also subject to God's laws and Man cannot Judge according to God's laws. only God can render Judgement on that. However, that won't stop man from accusing God of anything. and as I said, you can go right ahead and do so. I will neither stand in your way nor will I stand with you.

My stance is clear. Man cannot judge God for God's Law and God is above Man's Law.

Sim, I'll miss you.Hehe, likewise. Take care :)

JuNii & Anglachel and Anguirel, can you truely not understand how your worship of something you believe have done so many horrors, frightens others?

You do judge this being you worship. You see it as a benevolent force, to the extent that you pay homage to it. How is it not simple glorification of insane violence?

*snip* while I did not research all forms of mass hypnosis. nor every form of Hypnotic Suggestion, there was none of the usual indications of such methods. no piped music, hymnals were sung by everyone, no unusual smells (chemical or pharmacudical methods of hallucenogens) if there are other (and I'm sure there was) please go and provide them and i'll provide as much detail.

Were you relaxed? Are you prone to mind-drifts (day dreaming)?

Lotta IRL today. Good thing i stayed up 'bout all night.

So what'd i miss?

If i caught this correctly, apparently something i don't really like seeing .... :(

Here's another something (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006GAOBI/qid=1148913318/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6996531-6304837?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130) you may like...
Hey, most excellent. *bows*

I thought quite a while after that one - it was the first in a while to do that, admittedly.
I haven't watched the Director's Cut yet since i liked it the way it was .... my favourite concept was The Philosophy of Time Travel.

Hehe, likewise. Take care :)

JuNii & Anglachel and Anguirel, can you truely not understand how your worship of something you believe have done so many horrors, frightens others?

You do judge this being you worship. You see it as a benevolent force, to the extent that you pay homage to it. How is it not simple glorification of insane violence?you hold man's law as a pinnical of man's acheivements. yet with that law, man has forced as much violence on their fellow man, taking everything in the name of "the Law" and rendering Judgement just as harsh than anything the bible can and has done. yet you hold the laws of man dear to you. Can you say the same thing? how can you hold faith in something that can change day to day and is defined by lawyers who can twist words like taffy?

if you hold science as the pinnical of man's intelligence, you also realize that science has produced more weapons that has killed more people than the Bible? why persue science when so much death and suffereing has ensued because of it? because of science, people now ask "can we?" and "Why Not" instead of "Should We"

such blind faith also scares me.

I do not Judge God. I do not Judge Science nor the Laws of man.

I love this letter:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Christianity developed a killer marketing ploy - The Catholic [Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou(from neuter genitive of holos, whole. See sol- in Indo-European Roots).] Church, The One True Religion (TM), sin and salvation through a priesthood of divinely annointed men providing for complete control of the populace, taxation...

Contemporary obsession with the western hemisphere (catalyzed by the USA's killer marketing tactic: A place where everyman can raise himself up from the gutter into opulence and wealth [feeding the corporate machine]) often has us forgetting that Christianity isn't the only religion or necessarily The One True Religion (TM), and doesn't have a majority of the earth's populace indoctrinated. Religious tolerance is the only acceptable solution, with the end of agressive marketing and scare tactics leading to sensible proselytizing. Threatening people into ascribing to any belief system crafts a congregation of unwilling believers, persisting on a level where they comply simply to avoid a theorized punishment.

If you want to witness a religion that truly teaches and practices Love, try Sufism.

Succor,

Castrensis
Oooh! All *tingly*!!!! :)

Good post. Welcome to NS Forums, if such felicitiation hasn't already been extended to you.

Were you relaxed? Are you prone to mind-drifts (day dreaming)?
mildly uncomfortable, but not distractedly so.

well I wasn't paying attention to what he was saying so yes I was daydreaming.

It matters to me if I'm going to rail against him.
Oh ... well, if you must know, it was Omar Ravenhurst. He goes under the pseudonym George Williams.
Good luck gettin' to him though ... he's got a Fadela Complex. *puffs a cigar, thinks about sharks*
"For God's sake!"

"It jumped of its own accord."

"You did see that, didn't you?"

"Joan, are you all right?
What happened?"

"Fadela stormed in here, and-and
she threw your typewriter out the window."

"Well, that's it.
The woman has to go."

Yeah, but it's fun to argue...or at least it is for me. Although I agree, I'm an atheist and absolutly nothing will change my mind about that, short of God himself coming to talk to me and prove his own existance by causing miracles such as turning me into a llama. But the chances of that happening are non-existant. I've already made up my mind about this and no person can change it, although they try so very hard. *sigh* Stop trying to save my soul!
Have faith. I'm an alpaca, after all (my friends will testify to this).

JuNii & Anglachel and Anguirel, can you truely not understand how your worship of something you believe have done so many horrors, frightens others?

You do judge this being you worship. You see it as a benevolent force, to the extent that you pay homage to it. How is it not simple glorification of insane violence?
Similization, which do you consider more reliable? One's own experience or the Bible? Since you are an atheist, I am going to assume the former. Now, in my experience I have never seen God do anything remotely violent, nor have I ever met someone who has. Why should I see God as anything other than a benevolent force? That is all I have ever seen God be.

Depends on what I've eaten recently. :D TRUE!
Touche`.



Some thought? I generally give things considerably more thought than some, and the dilemma you pose is an old and familiar one.Well, i suspect then that you would see it as an apt allegory?

Lotta IRL today. Good thing i stayed up 'bout all night.

So what'd i miss?

If i caught this correctly, apparently something i don't really like seeing .... :(

Oh the usual. One side sez ol' uncle Yahweh is a mass murderer, the other points to his compassion and being beyond human laws and stuff. While I subliminally convince them to worship chocolate. It's all good really...

*downs a Toblerone. One triangle at a time.*

Gimme an obscure reference! Gimme gimme!

mildly uncomfortable, but not distractedly so.

well I wasn't paying attention to what he was saying so yes I was daydreaming.

Aha! A good precondition for hypnosis. Day-dreaming is the best state of mind to work with. Now to check, was there any sudden sound when you felt that blow?

And then for a brief moment, I saw him. A young man in the night sky, wearing a white printed shirt and with two outstretched hands - A Porn mag in one, and a bar of Chocolate in the other.
...and HERE's where the line of converts starts, just like Ladamesansmerci's line of masochistic male posters. :D