NationStates Jolt Archive

If there is a god, then he owes, me, my mum, my dad, my sister and my best friend a few favors.

If there is a god, then he owes, me, my mum, my dad, my sister and my best friend a few favors.

Well he created a planet specificly designed for your existance, made the world perfect for you, and when you screwed it up he died to make it ok again. I think your even.

Well he created a planet specificly designed for your existance, made the world perfect for you, and when you screwed it up he died to make it ok again. I think your even.

If he created and designed all of existence, would suggesting that it got screwed up put the blame on the project manager?

Well he created a planet specificly designed for your existance, made the world perfect for you, and when you screwed it up he died to make it ok again. I think your even.If perfection's that easy to screw up, God's a clown.

I've had too many bizarre circumstances occur in my life for me not to believe that there is a God.

A hard line drive is hit to Grave in deep left field. He's really going to have to move to get that ball.

...

He snatches it out of the air like Oprah grabbing a cheeseburger. The Angels win the Series! The Angels win the Series!

As a wise philosopher once wrote: *flort*

Love the 'Oprah' reference. Although, now I want a cheeseburger. :)

If he created and designed all of existence, would suggesting that it got screwed up put the blame on the project manager?

Indeed - if a manager fails to train his staff, who's to blame..?

I have to agree. There's also an expression that says "no good deeds go unpunished."

Also...the Bible does state that "Good works alone does not get you access into the kingdom of heaven"

Are you for or against the idea that good works are the result of salvation?

You say you agree that the idea is backward, but you quote Scripture that supports the idea.

Indeed - if a manager fails to train his staff, who's to blame..?
the staff... Don't you read Dilbert?

So when he said he was sent to ONLY the lost sheep of Israel was He wrong? Was he Lying? Did he not know that he was actually sent for all mankind?

I again point ot the parable of the King inviting his subjects to a feast. I need to find that. Hold on...

Are you for or against the idea that good works are the result of salvation?

You say you agree that the idea is backward, but you quote Scripture that supports the idea.

No, it doesn't. The scripture supports that Good Works can be done when salvation is not there. That makes your statement false. Good works do not mean one is saved. That's the point everyone is making and you're missing.

Found it! Matthew 22:1-14

No, it doesn't. The scripture supports that Good Works can be done when salvation is not there. That makes your statement false. Good works do not mean one is saved. That's the point everyone is making and you're missing.

You have the problem you seem to be accusing me of. You cannot take the literal meaning of words at times. The context of the situation determines the meaning.

Can Man do good works? Yes and no. What do I mean by good works? Usually when I say "good works" I mean that there is a deed free from the inluence of sin. Because Man is sinful, it is impossible for anyone to do a good work. Only God, who has no sin, can do a good work. However, are we talking about a deed that is not utterly evil? Then yes, Man can do good works. I'm sorry: I didn't realize the context had changed. I was still caught on the earlier topic of total depravity.

I've had too many bizarre circumstances occur in my life for me not to believe that there is a God.

Surely Naliitr wasn't that weird.

Yeah, why not all PEOPLE. That would be clearer, no? For example, couldn't I be a white supremecist interested in only perpetuating the white race and send my disciples out to all nations? Would that mean I was trying to perpetuate all people?

A nation is a people (a group of persons with a defining characteristic) whose common ground is ethnicity.

It is also used sometimes to mean a state in the same way country is used, but if you want to be a purist, neither nation nor country ought to be used that way.

You have the problem you seem to be accusing me of. You cannot take the literal meaning of words at times. The context of the situation determines the meaning.

Can Man do good works? Yes and no. What do I mean by good works? Usually when I say "good works" I mean that there is a deed free from the inluence of sin. Because Man is sinful, it is impossible for anyone to do a good work. Only God, who has no sin, can do a good work. However, are we talking about a deed that is not utterly evil? Then yes, Man can do good works. I'm sorry: I didn't realize the context had changed. I was still caught on the earlier topic of total depravity.

You're contradicting yourself. Using one definition Men are incapable of Good works. And using the other ALL Men are capable of Good works. Neither supports your claim.

A nation is a people (a group of persons with a defining characteristic) whose common ground is ethnicity.

It is also used sometimes to mean a state in the same way country is used, but if you want to be a purist, neither nation nor country ought to be used that way.

But they were. At the time these things were written nation meant exactly that, a political entity, a governing body with borders. You make these claims but then one must forget the existence of the Roman nation which most certainly contained varied kinds of peoples or the many other nations. Israel wasn't even all one kind of people.

Found it! Matthew 22:1-14

And? How does that apply? He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel according to his testimony. Jesus said that. ONLY. ONLY. ONLY. What part of ONLY is difficult. That means if he was ACTUALLY sent to anyone else by God then he was either wrong or lying. If he was sent by God to other than the lost sheep of Isreal, then that most certainly requires Jesus to either have been deceiving his followers or to not know the will of God. How does a parable that says that not all who come may enter address that fact?

I again refer you to Exodus 7:1-11

You're contradicting yourself. Using one definition Men are incapable of Good works. And using the other ALL Men are capable of Good works. Neither supports your claim.

What is my claim? Apparently I don't understand what I'm claiming!

the staff... Don't you read Dilbert?

Ah, that only works if your boss is a p.h.i. doesn't it?

And?

Jesus, King of the Jews, offered salvation to the Jews and they refused it. For the most part. There were some who confessed Him as Lord and Savior, but the masses did not. So He went elsewhere. And He used messengers, or Apostles, to go out for Him. It seems pretty obvious to me.

What is my claim? Apparently I don't understand what I'm claiming!

And good deeds are the result of being saved.

According to your last good deeds are either impossible or NOT a result of being saved. Which is it?

I believe there is a divine ordering force, not necessarilly a god-deity-figure

I also believe that organized religion is detrimental to society, as it causes us to look to the church for answers instead of what we know to be true in our hearts

But they were. At the time these things were written nation meant exactly that, a political entity, a governing body with borders. You make these claims but then one must forget the existence of the Roman nation which most certainly contained varied kinds of peoples or the many other nations. Israel wasn't even all one kind of people.

And how do you know that? It is not very often that a word loses its meaning and then regains it without a conscious effort on the part of some leader. And since I know of no such effort, I find it very difficult to believe what youare saying about the evolution of language. And that's not even considering tranlations.

Every reference I have heard to a nation in those times is made about an ethnic population, generally together in a location, but not necesarilly.

According to your last good deeds are either impossible or NOT a result of being saved. Which is it?

Using the first context (works with no sin), good works are impossible.

Using the second context (works in which the focus of the motive is to serve God), good works are only possible as a result of salvation.

Using a third context (works in which the Law is obeyed, though not for the motive of serving God), good works are possible any time.

Now, have I clarified my position adequately?

But they were. At the time these things were written nation meant exactly that, a political entity, a governing body with borders. You make these claims but then one must forget the existence of the Roman nation which most certainly contained varied kinds of peoples or the many other nations. Israel wasn't even all one kind of people.
but either definition, wether Nation speaks of the political boudaries or ethnic ones, the last commandment was ALL Nations. all encompassing... everyone. reguardless of Ethnic or political / Geographical Grouping.

Given that there is no statistically significant variation in the answers to this poll, I can only conclude one thing: Your question is flawed.

Given that there is no statistically significant variation in the answers to this poll, I can only conclude one thing: Your question is flawed.
How does that work?

I again refer you to Exodus 7:1-11

How does this affect anything in our discussion?

Jesus, King of the Jews, offered salvation to the Jews and they refused it. For the most part. There were some who confessed Him as Lord and Savior, but the masses did not. So He went elsewhere. And He used messengers, or Apostles, to go out for Him. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Okay, God is omniscient. He knows who he sent Jesus for and what will happen. He knows ALL. So are you claiming that God didn't know that the many of the lost sheep would reject him? Funny, because Jesus said that many would reject him. He said that many would fight. Jesus predicted the future but couldn't predict the lost sheep would reject him in part? Then why did he prophesy about them rejecting him?

You make out like our omniscient God simply made an effort and because the desired result did not happen changed his mind. He knew the result from the beginning. It was prophesied, remember. That means Jesus already knew the outcome when he made the statement I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal. How do you rectify an omniscient God, a Savior that predicts his death long before it occurs, a condemnation that was prophesied before Jesus, and a sudden change in direction that YOU claim is a result of the rejection they ALL knew was coming. If he was sent to save all of humanity as so many now claim, why did Jesus claim otherwise.

It was God who sent him and he only sent him once, so either he was sent for all of humanity or he wasn't. He can change who he saves but he cannot change why he was sent after the fact. So was Jesus correct that he was sent for ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal, was he lying or was he wrong?

I hold that he was correct. Jesus was not sent for other than the lost sheep. However, according to the actions of Jesus, faith can save even Gentiles. That still doesn't change who he was sent for and it WAS NOT Gentiles.

How does this affect anything in our discussion?

It doesn't. I thought we were just referencing random passages without incorporating them into the discussion or proving anything. Make an argument. Don't just quote passages.

but either definition, wether Nation speaks of the political boudaries or ethnic ones, the last commandment was ALL Nations. all encompassing... everyone. reguardless of Ethnic or political / Geographical Grouping.

All people refers to all people. All nations means go everyWHERE, it makes no statement about everyONE. It could mean everyone. It could mean only white people. You can't tell from that statement alone. So we look to other statements. "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal." Unless you want to contradict the words of Jesus, you MUST take this at face value and accept that he was sent ONLY to the Jews. Now whether others are saved by Jesus is another issue entirely, but not what we are discussing.

I believe there is a divine ordering force, not necessarilly a god-deity-figure
What is the difference you draw between "divine ordering force" and "god-deity-figure"? (just curious)

Using the first context (works with no sin), good works are impossible.

Using the second context (works in which the focus of the motive is to serve God), good works are only possible as a result of salvation.

Not true. I can serve God and not be saved. Given the prophesies and many necessary 'bad' acts, many who were either Atheists or of another faith served God. Jesus had to be crucified in order to die for our sins, no? Wouldn't the cruxifiction and those that carried out be providing a service to God whether that was their intent or no. Jesus could have prevented the cruxifiction, but didn't and order his followers not to. In that case, preventing the cruxifiction would have been counter to the service of God. So those that allowed it to occur whether intent was there or not still served God.

Using a third context (works in which the Law is obeyed, though not for the motive of serving God), good works are possible any time.

Now, have I clarified my position adequately?
Meanwhile, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

The passage cited that you claimed supported your statement used the third context. That means that either you were intending to use it in that way, in which case your statement was false or you were wrong about it supporting your position. Which one?

Okay, God is omniscient. He knows who he sent Jesus for and what will happen. He knows ALL. So are you claiming that God didn't know that the many of the lost sheep would reject him? Funny, because Jesus said that many would reject him. He said that many would fight. Jesus predicted the future but couldn't predict the lost sheep would reject him in part? Then why did he prophesy about them rejecting him?

You make out like our omniscient God simply made an effort and because the desired result did not happen changed his mind. He knew the result from the beginning. It was prophesied, remember. That means Jesus already knew the outcome when he made the statement I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal. How do you rectify an omniscient God, a Savior that predicts his death long before it occurs, a condemnation that was prophesied before Jesus, and a sudden change in direction that YOU claim is a result of the rejection they ALL knew was coming. If he was sent to save all of humanity as so many now claim, why did Jesus claim otherwise.

It was God who sent him and he only sent him once, so either he was sent for all of humanity or he wasn't. He can change who he saves but he cannot change why he was sent after the fact. So was Jesus correct that he was sent for ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal, was he lying or was he wrong?

I hold that he was correct. Jesus was not sent for other than the lost sheep. However, according to the actions of Jesus, faith can save even Gentiles. That still doesn't change who he was sent for and it WAS NOT Gentiles.

I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be saying something perfectly true: Jesus was sent to the Jews. Okay! That's fine!

But then when someone begins to talk about the messnegers to the Gentiles you begin talking about making Jesus a liar and I know not what else! I don't understand you at all!

And Jesus was sent to save all (in so much as the offer of salvation is open to everyone). However, He preached only to the Jews. He was sent to the Jews and they refused Him. But His sacrifice is for all. There is no change in direction. God knew it was going to happen, and He did it anyway. Fine! He's God. He can do what He wants to do. Then He offered it to the Gentiles. There is no change in thought. There is no cause and effect.

It doesn't. I thought we were just referencing random passages without incorporating them into the discussion or proving anything. Make an argument. Don't just quote passages.

Grow up! I applied the Scripture I quoted.

I wish I made the poll public.. there's shit loads of lurkers voting.

Not true. I can serve God and not be saved. Given the prophesies and many necessary 'bad' acts, many who were either Atheists or of another faith served God. Jesus had to be crucified in order to die for our sins, no? Wouldn't the cruxifiction and those that carried out be providing a service to God whether that was their intent or no. Jesus could have prevented the cruxifiction, but didn't and order his followers not to. In that case, preventing the cruxifiction would have been counter to the service of God. So those that allowed it to occur whether intent was there or not still served God.


Meanwhile, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

The passage cited that you claimed supported your statement used the third context. That means that either you were intending to use it in that way, in which case your statement was false or you were wrong about it supporting your position. Which one?

It was a sin to crucify Jesus. He had done no wrong, yet He was executed. God used that sin for His purposes, but those who killed Jesus were not serving God. You are equating, erroneously, service with use.

I continue to get lost in your statements. What passage are you claiming I have contridicted now?

That wasn't a sin --even I know that, and I'm not a Christian. A sin is against God; the crucifixion was a part of God's plan.

It is a sin to execute someone when they have commited no crime. Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus was a sin. However, it was a sin God used to open salvation to us. There are countless times in Scripture and "real" life where God uses sin for His purposes. He uses every sin for His purpose. That doesn't change that it is a sin.

All people refers to all people. All nations means go everyWHERE, it makes no statement about everyONE. It could mean everyone. It could mean only white people. You can't tell from that statement alone. So we look to other statements. "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal." Unless you want to contradict the words of Jesus, you MUST take this at face value and accept that he was sent ONLY to the Jews. Now whether others are saved by Jesus is another issue entirely, but not what we are discussing.how can you exclude anyone when preaching to all nations?

it won't mean only White People because all nations (speaking ethnically) would also include Yellow people, brown, black, red, green, pink, orange...ect.

same for Geographical/Political nations. Speak to the Roman Empire, and you're speaking not only to the roman citizens but to all people absorbed into the Roman Empire, and to include ALL NATIONS, then you include all others outside the Roman Empire.

how can you exclude anyone when preaching to all nations?

it won't mean only White People because all nations (speaking ethnically) would also include Yellow people, brown, black, red, green, pink, orange...ect.

same for Geographical/Political nations. Speak to the Roman Empire, and you're speaking not only to the roman citizens but to all people absorbed into the Roman Empire, and to include ALL NATIONS, then you include all others outside the Roman Empire.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!! I think someone else said this also. Thank you to you too!!!!!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

how can you exclude anyone when preaching to all nations?

it won't mean only White People because all nations (speaking ethnically) would also include Yellow people, brown, black, red, green, pink, orange...ect.

same for Geographical/Political nations. Speak to the Roman Empire, and you're speaking not only to the roman citizens but to all people absorbed into the Roman Empire, and to include ALL NATIONS, then you include all others outside the Roman Empire.

One can carry the word to every nation, without sharing it with every people...

how can you exclude anyone when preaching to all nations?

it won't mean only White People because all nations (speaking ethnically) would also include Yellow people, brown, black, red, green, pink, orange...ect.

same for Geographical/Political nations. Speak to the Roman Empire, and you're speaking not only to the roman citizens but to all people absorbed into the Roman Empire, and to include ALL NATIONS, then you include all others outside the Roman Empire.
But Jesus said he was only preaching to the Jews. Graves already said that.

how can you exclude anyone when preaching to all nations?

it won't mean only White People because all nations (speaking ethnically) would also include Yellow people, brown, black, red, green, pink, orange...ect.

same for Geographical/Political nations. Speak to the Roman Empire, and you're speaking not only to the roman citizens but to all people absorbed into the Roman Empire, and to include ALL NATIONS, then you include all others outside the Roman Empire.
No, you're not. You are redefining the statement because you want it to say something else. Speaking to all nations is not the same as speaking to everyone in every nation even if you wish for it to say that really, really badly.

Let's see.

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal"
"Take my message to all nations (to speak to the lost sheep there)."
My explanation of all nations, no contradiction.

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal"
"Take my message to all people."
Your explanation of all people, contradiction.

I have no idea what your point is. You seem to be saying something perfectly true: Jesus was sent to the Jews. Okay! That's fine!

But then when someone begins to talk about the messnegers to the Gentiles you begin talking about making Jesus a liar and I know not what else! I don't understand you at all!

And Jesus was sent to save all (in so much as the offer of salvation is open to everyone). However, He preached only to the Jews. He was sent to the Jews and they refused Him. But His sacrifice is for all. There is no change in direction. God knew it was going to happen, and He did it anyway. Fine! He's God. He can do what He wants to do. Then He offered it to the Gentiles. There is no change in thought. There is no cause and effect.

Here's the point. It's a simple point. Very clear. Jesus said he was not sent to save all, but only sent to the lost sheep of Isreal. You are contradicting that point. My question is if Jesus said that and it's not true then was he wrong or lying. If he said that and it is true, then you are wrong (or lying, but I assume you're not trying to deceive me until you give me some indication otherwise). So assuming you're not wrong, was Jesus wrong or lying?

It was a sin to crucify Jesus. He had done no wrong, yet He was executed. God used that sin for His purposes, but those who killed Jesus were not serving God. You are equating, erroneously, service with use.

I continue to get lost in your statements. What passage are you claiming I have contridicted now?

So if they had not 'sinned' and had saved Jesus from cruxifiction, would that be serving God. Remember, the act of the cruxifiction was preventable, but Jesus asked that it not be prevented. Don't forget that. The cruxifiction was a service to the Lord whether that was the intent of those performing the service or not.

I wish I made the poll public.. there's shit loads of lurkers voting.
considering how large this thread is... they're stuggling to keep up. :D

considering how large this thread is... they're stuggling to keep up. :D

Yeah, seriously. Who isn't?

Yeah, seriously. Who isn't?I have all but given up. I think I lost a hundred pages in just one day. Worst thing is, I think I saw someone accuse me of claiming the Pope started WWII or something similarily insane :(

.. But I can't be arsed to find it.

considering how large this thread is... they're stuggling to keep up. :D

I wonder how much faith we can put in the numbers... every previous poll has shown a marked favour... we've not seen one on a related subject that gave an equal result...

I have all but given up. I think I lost a hundred pages in just one day. Worst thing is, I think I saw someone accuse me of claiming the Pope started WWII or something similarily insane :(

.. But I can't be arsed to find it.

What's this?

You claimed the Pope started WWII?

:P

I think the closeness of the poll after so many votes is interesting.

I wonder how accurate a reflection it is of society at large?

What's this?

You claimed the Pope started WWII?

:PLike hell I did. I may be a genuinely ignorant & obnoxious bastard, but there are limits to my stupidity - regardless of how drugged I may have been at the time.

But I wouldn't mind magically locating that post, to clarify a thing or two... Or perhaps just to call the author a stupid lying [C-word].

Like hell I did. I may be a genuinely ignorant & obnoxious bastard, but there are limits to my stupidity - regardless of how drugged I may have been at the time.

But I wouldn't mind magically locating that post, to clarify a thing or two... Or perhaps just to call the author a stupid lying [C-word].

Search feature is your friend. Seach for the word pope and WWII.

Only the God threads get so damn much play...

Search feature is your friend. Seach for the word pope and WWII.Thanks. Odd how I can admin a Vb board myself, yet fail to think of that.
Some day, I'll find the post. For now though, having to wait 180secs after accidentially searching for ppope & WWWII, only to accidentially search for pope & WWWII, has turned me off the search feature.

Incidentially, I can't figure out if it's my fingers or the keyboard I need to replace... Any tips on that, oh helpful one?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11055231&postcount=4590
I never have objected to You trying to pass Judgement on God. I just stated that I won't. You and SC seem keen tho, on Forcing me to. I Just do.because to me, he is. My faith doesn't have to make sense to you.


it doesn't. but if you can explain your belief in such a fluid and flawed system then you can also gain a glimps into Faith. as for spinning the issue, you and SC were doing alot of that yourselves.
and reading your posts, you blame the POPE for Hitler's Actions. infact you and SC make it a point to blame everyone else. however, if you read back, you'll find that if you are defining the word "Accept" to mean Exscuse, my answer is given.
tho you tried your best to rile me up, I haven't gotten angry nor irritated.

You were right. Here's the post.

Thanks. Odd how I can admin a Vb board myself, yet fail to think of that.
Some day, I'll find the post. For now though, having to wait 180secs after accidentially searching for ppope & WWWII, only to accidentially search for pope & WWWII, has turned me off the search feature.

Incidentially, I can't figure out if it's my fingers or the keyboard I need to replace... Any tips on that, oh helpful one?
Start with your fingers because that's free. Then try the keyboard.

I think the closeness of the poll after so many votes is interesting.

I wonder how accurate a reflection it is of society at large?

It's not. Polling our various countries, atheists may get about...10%-ish? At best. It's also an odd represent tation of NS it seems, when I first got here, it was more like 75% Atheist...I think...My memory's never been so good.

It's not. Polling our various countries, atheists may get about...10%-ish? At best. It's also an odd represent tation of NS it seems, when I first got here, it was more like 75% Atheist...I think...My memory's never been so good.
Well, the OP never stated that it had to be a Christian god. Many people here might believe in a divine entity/divine entities, not necessarily the Christian god people often associate the word "god" with.

It's not. Polling our various countries, atheists may get about...10%-ish? At best. It's also an odd represent tation of NS it seems, when I first got here, it was more like 75% Atheist...I think...My memory's never been so good.
I'd say that most people on NS are more intellegent than the average person.
And most smart people are atheists. I guess that's because we don't believe in ridiculous things such as an all-powerful-being who just created the world.

I'd say that most people on NS are more intellegent than the average person.
And most smart people are atheists. I guess that's because we don't believe in ridiculous things such as an all-powerful-being who just created the world.

Ridiculous. Religion is very prevelent among scientists and various other educated people. I doubt atheists were ever as prevelent as is claimed.

Ridiculous. Religion is very prevelent among scientists and various other educated people. I doubt atheists were ever as prevelent as is claimed.

That is true. Educated people may be educated, but they're still human. And all humans require meaning. God delivers this meaning to them.

Well, the OP never stated that it had to be a Christian god. Many people here might believe in a divine entity/divine entities, not necessarily the Christian god people often associate the word "god" with.

...Did I?

That is true. Educated people may be educated, but they're still human. And all humans require meaning. God delivers this meaning to them.
It puzzles me as to how modern, educated people can believe in religion. Puzzles, yet amuses me. Creationism. Hah!

Ridiculous. Religion is very prevelent among scientists and various other educated people. I doubt atheists were ever as prevelent as is claimed.Atheists, to the best of my knowledge, only makes for some 2-4% of the global population. We are, however, mostly found among the highly educated. But with so few of us, that really doesn't say a whole lot.

Now to something completely different; JuNii, what on Earth compelled you to claim I blamed the pope for the actions of Hilter?!

I think this is the first time I've ever felt tempted to bitch to a mod, but I'll give you a chance to explain just what that gross lie is supposed to mean.

It puzzles me as to how modern, educated people can believe in religion. Puzzles, yet amuses me. Creationism. Hah!


It puzzles me also. But it doesn't amuse me, it makes me angry. :(

Atheists, to the best of my knowledge, only makes for some 2-4% of the global population. We are, however, mostly found among the highly educated. But with so few of us, that really doesn't say a whole lot.


I beg to differ. The vast majority of atheists I know are rather uneducated. They make the following steps of logic:

God created the universe. Then who created God. Therefore God doesn't exist.


Whereas the more educated people I know are christian.

Atheists, to the best of my knowledge, only makes for some 2-4% of the global population. We are, however, mostly found among the highly educated. But with so few of us, that really doesn't say a whole lot.
Actually, 8% according to this:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/ladamesansmerci/rel_pie.gif

Here's the source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

It puzzles me also. But it doesn't amuse me, it makes me angry. :(
Sometimes you just have to laugh at peoples stupidity. That will probably make them angry, and you'll have your revenge. Heh heh...

Sometimes you just have to laugh at peoples stupidity. That will probably make them angry, and you'll have your revenge. Heh heh...

:D

That is true. Educated people may be educated, but they're still human. And all humans require meaning. God delivers this meaning to them.
All humans require meaning, you say?

Woohoo, I really AM an alien!!!

Sometimes you just have to laugh at peoples stupidity. That will probably make them angry, and you'll have your revenge. Heh heh...
So do you believe that every religious person is stupid?

Wow, 49% of this site is atheist. I bet there's even more who haven't voted.

So do you believe that every religious person is stupid?

Depends, on the nature of their religious...ness.

So do you believe that every religious person is stupid?
Nah! I just find it impossible to understand how people can believe in this religious crap. Especially well-educated people. *Shrugs*

Wow, 49% of this site is atheist. I bet there's even more who haven't voted.

49? We're still over 50!

All humans require meaning, you say?

Woohoo, I really AM an alien!!!


It's widely accepted that humans require meaning as much as they require food water shelter and love. People like to know why they should live, what difference it makes if they die, etc. Those that haven't found meaning tend to be depressed or rather irritable towards life and those that have found it tend to be happier.

Wow, 49% of this site is atheist. I bet there's even more who haven't voted.
WTF? Learn to read, man.

WTF? Learn to read, man.
:D

Wow, 49% of this site is atheist. I bet there's even more who haven't voted.
Yeah, we don't go into a religious fevor and vote in every poll about religion. I rarely post on religious threads, I don't give a toss about God and shit like that.

Actually, 8% according to this:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j187/ladamesansmerci/rel_pie.gif

Here's the source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

It actually says about one half of one percent (look at the second url) identify as atheist.

Nah! I just find it impossible to understand how people can believe in this religious crap. Especially well-educated people. *Shrugs*
I'm sorry, but I can't understand how you make such a distinct connection between education and religion. Just because one is well-educated doesn't mean he or she is immune to experiencing the leap of faith, just like less-educated people are not more likely to take the leap of faith.

I didn't vote because i'm agnostic, i can't say yes or no for sure. If you had an i don't know option, i would have voted.

I didn't vote because i'm agnostic, i can't say yes or no for sure. If you had an i don't know option, i would have voted.

You probably could. Do you believe in a god?

It actually says about one half of one percent (look at the second url) identify as atheist.
Okay. I didn't see that part. The pie chart was just too colourful and alluring.

...mmm...pie...

It actually says about one half of one percent (look at the second url) identify as atheist.

Hmph...those who identify...I dun trust 'em.

You probably could. Do you believe in a god?

That's not the question of the poll. It says is there a God? It's also important to note that the way it's worded, many religious people are going to answer no.

It's widely accepted that humans require meaning as much as they require food water shelter and love.

It is also widely accepted that Bigfoot roams the woods of the Pacific Northwest.


People like to know why they should live, what difference it makes if they die, etc.

Right, so clearly I am not a person.


Those that haven't found meaning tend to be depressed or rather irritable towards life and those that have found it tend to be happier.
Oooh, so I'm a person, I'm just a sad and cranky person who really would be happier if only I required some objective source of validation for my existence?

That's a new argument, I'll grant you that.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand how you make such a distinct connection between education and religion. Just because one is well-educated doesn't mean he or she is immune to experiencing the leap of faith, just like less-educated people are not more likely to take the leap of faith.


One generally draws the connection between education and rationality. Those that are educated know that it is dangerous to blindly accept something as fact without compelling evidence supporting it.

That's not the question of the poll. It says is ther a God. It's also important to note that the way it's worded, many religious people are going to answer no.

Aye, that's true, but looking at the title, the intent seems to be measuring the faith of the posters. Not necessarily theist if you're religious, nor atheist if you aren't. This doesn't seem to be measuring religious versus non-religious though...

I'm sorry, but I can't understand how you make such a distinct connection between education and religion.

I'm guessing it's because countless studies and surveys have found a direct correlation between education level and religiosity.


Just because one is well-educated doesn't mean he or she is immune to experiencing the leap of faith,

No, it just means that he or she is statistically less likely to report ever having experienced such a leap.


just like less-educated people are not more likely to take the leap of faith.
Actually, statistically speaking, less-educated people are significantly more likely to report taking "leaps of faith."

Let me just be clear, though: I don't believe that all religious people are stupid or crazy, and I don't believe all non-religious people are smart and awesome.

It is also widely accepted that Bigfoot roams the woods of the Pacific Northwest.


Right, so clearly I am not a person.


Oooh, so I'm a person, I'm just a sad and cranky person who really would be happier if only I required some objective source of validation for my existence?

That's a new argument, I'll grant you that.
I suspect you seek purpose more than you let on. You just don't seek it in the same places. Why do you think so many people want their jobs or activities to change the world or make a difference?

It is also widely accepted that Bigfoot roams the woods of the Pacific Northwest.


Right, so clearly I am not a person.


Oooh, so I'm a person, I'm just a sad and cranky person who really would be happier if only I required some objective source of validation for my existence?

That's a new argument, I'll grant you that.

Firstly, it is not widely accepted that Bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest.

Secondly, it is a supported generalisation. But as with any generalisation, there are exceptions to the rule. Few exceptions, but exceptions none the less.

I suspect you seek purpose more than you let on. You just don't seek it in the same places.

Nope. I don't "seek purpose." I have several purposes, to be sure, but I never "sought" any of them. I decided what purposes I want my life to serve (some trivial, others a bit more pretentious), and I live accordingly. I honestly don't care if there is any objective "meaning" to my life, though I suspect there probably isn't.


Why do you think so many people want their jobs or activities to change the world or make a difference?
I'm not arguing that OTHER people don't search for meaning. I'm sure most people do, indeed, seek some outside source of support and validation. I'm simply pointing out that this is not an inherent trait possessed by all human beings, because I am a human being who does not possess it.

I suspect you seek purpose more than you let on. You just don't seek it in the same places. Why do you think so many people want their jobs or activities to change the world or make a difference?

Exactly. Some people's purpose is fame and fortune, other peoples purpose is to find happiness. It's extremely rare that a person goes through life not aspiring to something, not wanting anything more.

Like hell I did. I may be a genuinely ignorant & obnoxious bastard, but there are limits to my stupidity - regardless of how drugged I may have been at the time.

But I wouldn't mind magically locating that post, to clarify a thing or two... Or perhaps just to call the author a stupid lying [C-word].

Whereas... I am ignorant and obnoxious, and am unlimited in my stupidity.

The Pope DID start WWII. I distictly remember it. He bombed Pearl Harbour, he invaded Poland... there's just no depths to which he wouldn't sink, the pointy-hatted feind.

:D

"Seeking purpose"? "Finding meaning"? Now, I know what those phrases are trying to say, but they reek of existentialism and I think they are gross misnomers.

It is beyond any human to assess the full impact which they have had on others and the world around them, and thus dubious at best for anybody to declare what their purpose in life is.

Nevertheless, I agree that people need to have something they are doing. I think it was Eriksson who proposed the psychosocial stages of development, one of them being the conflict between productivity or stagnation.

Nope. I don't "seek purpose." I have several purposes, to be sure, but I never "sought" any of them. I decided what purposes I want my life to serve (some trivial, others a bit more pretentious), and I live accordingly. I honestly don't care if there is any objective "meaning" to my life, though I suspect there probably isn't.


I'm not arguing that OTHER people don't search for meaning. I'm sure most people do, indeed, seek some outside source of support and validation. I'm simply pointing out that this is not an inherent trait possessed by all human beings, because I am a human being who does not possess it.

So you're saying that you don't want to do anything at all with your life? You don't care whether you die tomorrow or live forever? You don't want to achieve anything? If you don't have purpose what is the point of living?

Only the God threads get so damn much play...

Abortion and being naturally gay, have had some pretty good scores, too. :)

Anything someone can bring a really good 'gut-feeling' to. :)

Exactly. Some people's purpose is fame and fortune, other peoples purpose is to find happiness. It's extremely rare that a person goes through life not aspiring to something, not wanting anything more.
Well now you're just butchering the terms.

Having goals or wanting to accomplish something does not in any way equate to "seeking purpose." On the contrary, I would argue that a person who strives toward a particular goal with focus and determination is already quite clear what their purpose is.

One generally draws the connection between education and rationality. Those that are educated know that it is dangerous to blindly accept something as fact without compelling evidence supporting it.
I would say naivity has more to do with blindly accepting something than education, but I'm not denying there might be connections. Also, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Christians would say there is more than enough evidence from the Bible that god exists, whereas atheists would say there isn't evidence at all because the Bible could just be a couple of guys on shrooms writing a random book in a cave.

It is beyond any human to assess the full impact which they have had on others and the world around them, and thus dubious at best for anybody to declare what their purpose in life is.


I agree. But that doesn't mean that we still don't have the urge to look for purpose and meaning.

It's widely accepted that humans require meaning as much as they require food water shelter and love. People like to know why they should live, what difference it makes if they die, etc. Those that haven't found meaning tend to be depressed or rather irritable towards life and those that have found it tend to be happier.

"It's widely accepted" usually means "buggered if I can prove it"...

So you're saying that you don't want to do anything at all with your life? You don't care whether you die tomorrow or live forever? You don't want to achieve anything? If you don't have purpose what is the point of living?
Did you actually read anything I posted?

I stated, quite clearly, that my life has purpose. Actually, I used the plural, refering to more than one purpose. I expressed no nihilism and no longing for death. I simply stated that I do not require any outside source to provide me with meaning or purpose. I do not feel any need to seek for those things which I can easily provide for myself.

"It's widely accepted" usually means "buggered if I can prove it"...
It is a widely-believed fact that people who use the phrase "It is widely accepted" are alien replicons from beyond the moon.

I would say naivity has more to do with blindly accepting something than education, but I'm not denying there might be connections. Also, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Christians would say there is more than enough evidence from the Bible that god exists, whereas atheists would say there isn't evidence at all because the Bible could just be a couple of guys on shrooms writing a random book in a cave.

Indeed. But then the onus is on the Christian to show that this isn't a possibility. And since they haven't been able to do that, their evidence becomes slightly devalued.

I'm guessing it's because countless studies and surveys have found a direct correlation between education level and religiosity.

No, it just means that he or she is statistically less likely to report ever having experienced such a leap.

Actually, statistically speaking, less-educated people are significantly more likely to report taking "leaps of faith."

Let me just be clear, though: I don't believe that all religious people are stupid or crazy, and I don't believe all non-religious people are smart and awesome.
And the increase in ice cream eating directly correlates with the increase in the cases of drowning. Statistics cannot always be trusted. Just because there is correlation doesn't mean there is proof. I'm not denying that there might be connections, but until there is real proof, I'm going to take every statistical evidence with a grain of salt.

It is a widely-believed fact that people who use the phrase "It is widely accepted" are alien replicons from beyond the moon.

Widely accepted, you say? Hell, now I'm convinced, those alien fiends....

And the increase in ice cream eating directly correlates with the increase in the cases of drowning. Statistics cannot always be trusted. Just because there is correlation doesn't mean there is proof. I'm not denying that there might be connections, but until there is real proof, I'm going to take every statistical evidence with a grain of salt.
You expressed confusion as to how somebody could make such a direct connection between education and religiosity. I gave you an example of reasons why somebody might make that connection.

I think there is ample evidence that education and religiosity are correlated. I never said there was a causal relationship.

Did you actually read anything I posted?

I stated, quite clearly, that my life has purpose. Actually, I used the plural, refering to more than one purpose. I expressed no nihilism and no longing for death. I simply stated that I do not require any outside source to provide me with meaning or purpose. I do not feel any need to seek for those things which I can easily provide for myself.


Good. Just so that I'm clear on that point.

Ah..Nobody said that meaning has to come from a source other than yourself. All I said was that people need it to function. And you have meaning. You wondered what you should do with your life, and you gave yourself a purpose. Whether you fulfil that purpose or not is a different story. But you have meaning.

Indeed. But then the onus is on the Christian to show that this isn't a possibility. And since they haven't been able to do that, their evidence becomes slightly devalued.
Tell that to the Christian Fundamentalists. Personally, I really believe the bible was written in a cave by a couple of guys on shrooms.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand how you make such a distinct connection between education and religion. Just because one is well-educated doesn't mean he or she is immune to experiencing the leap of faith, just like less-educated people are not more likely to take the leap of faith.
I guess it's because with everything I've learned I've come to the conclusion that religion is a big pile of excretment. I don't know how people can take a particular religion seriously. Agnostics I can kind of understand, but churchgoers... *shrugs* Do they actually believe that when they put their hands together and speak, some all-mighty God is listening? If they don't worship this God then their soul will go to hell?
I could go on, but I'm sure you've heard it all before.
Lets just agree to disagree, eh?


Let me just be clear, though: I don't believe that all religious people are stupid or crazy, and I don't believe all non-religious people are smart and awesome.
But we are! Just look at me. A shinning example. :D

Well now you're just butchering the terms.

Having goals or wanting to accomplish something does not in any way equate to "seeking purpose." On the contrary, I would argue that a person who strives toward a particular goal with focus and determination is already quite clear what their purpose is.

But they first had to decide that that goal was for them.

Tell that to the Christian Fundamentalists. Personally, I really believe the bible was written in a cave by a couple of guys on shrooms.


Yeah. If I were to say that dragons and leprechauns existed and I wouldn't change my mind until they proved otherwise, they're abuse me for idiotic beliefs wouldn't they. Hypocrites.

Personally: I don't believe at at. I don't know how the Bible was written, I don't know who it was written by, I don't know if Jesus actually existed and I don't know how accurate the Bible is. I really don't care though. Even if God did exist it would make no difference.

You expressed confusion as to how somebody could make such a direct connection between education and religiosity. I gave you an example of reasons why somebody might make that connection.

I think there is ample evidence that education and religiosity are correlated. I never said there was a causal relationship.
You told me that more educated people are statistically less likely to be religious, and vice versa, and I said I'm going to take every statistical evidence with a grain of salt unless a scientific proof of cause and effect is provided. If you have such proof, please feel free to provide it.

Christ was a jew.


Wahoo!

I guess it's because with everything I've learned I've come to the conclusion that religion is a big pile of excretment. I don't know how people can take a particular religion seriously. Agnostics I can kind of understand, but churchgoers... *shrugs* Do they actually believe that when they put their hands together and speak, some all-mighty God is listening? If they don't worship this God then their soul will go to hell?
I could go on, but I'm sure you've heard it all before.
Lets just agree to disagree, eh?
Christianity is pretty egotistical, isn't it? A quote I really liked was "Only men are arrogant enough to create god in their own image." I don't remember who said it, but it's true.

Good. Just so that I'm clear on that point.

Ah..Nobody said that meaning has to come from a source other than yourself. All I said was that people need it to function. And you have meaning. You wondered what you should do with your life, and you gave yourself a purpose. Whether you fulfil that purpose or not is a different story. But you have meaning.
Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. I have never "sought meaning" or "gone looking for my purpose," any more than I've gone looking for my spleen or my nostrils. It would be stupid of me to go around looking for parts of my own self.

But they first had to decide that that goal was for them.
Sure. But, where I come from, "seeking" and "deciding" are not synonyms.

You told me that more educated people are statistically less likely to be religious, and vice versa, and I said I'm going to take every statistical evidence with a grain of salt unless a scientific proof of cause and effect is provided. If you have such proof, please feel free to provide it.
Um, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of these statistics.

It's kind of silly to say, "I don't believe in any correlation until you prove there is causation!" The correlations I stated DO EXIST. They're not causal relationships, of course, and I never claimed they were, but that doesn't mean that the statistics are meaningless.

Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. I have never "sought meaning" or "gone looking for my purpose," any more than I've gone looking for my spleen or my nostrils. It would be stupid of me to go around looking for parts of my own self.

People don't have to physically 'go looking' in order to seek purpose. They just need to want it and then decide on what it should be.

Sure. But, where I come from, "seeking" and "deciding" are not synonyms.


Seeking means wanting purpose in the first place. You can only deecide your purpose after you want it.

People don't have to physically 'go looking' in order to seek purpose. They just need to want it and then decide on what it should be.
Again, you seem to think that making a personal decision is the same thing as going looking for something.

For some people, maybe that's the case. For myself, it sounds bloody schizophrenic.

Exactly. Some people's purpose is fame and fortune, other peoples purpose is to find happiness. It's extremely rare that a person goes through life not aspiring to something, not wanting anything more.

Not at all what I'm saying. I'm talking about something bigger than oneself. Surviving or being happy don't count.

Well now you're just butchering the terms.

Having goals or wanting to accomplish something does not in any way equate to "seeking purpose." On the contrary, I would argue that a person who strives toward a particular goal with focus and determination is already quite clear what their purpose is.

What about MY point, the one that CC tried to steal but missed. I'm talking about seeking a purpose bigger than just being happy or surviving.

Seeking means wanting purpose in the first place. You can only deecide your purpose after you want it.
Again with these odd philosophical absolute statements.

1) It is quite possible to have a purpose that you don't want.
2) It is quite possible to not particularly want to have any purpose, and to live one's entire life without ever having one. (My old roommate is living proof)
3) Plenty of people decide that their life has a purpose without ever having actually considered if they want a purpose or not.

What about MY point, the one that CC tried to steal but missed. I'm talking about seeking a purpose bigger than just being happy or surviving.
What about it? I'm not sure what you're asking me, sorry.

Again, you seem to think that making a personal decision is the same thing as going looking for something.

For some people, maybe that's the case. For myself, it sounds bloody schizophrenic.


I never said people 'go out into the world and find their purpose'. I said they need it to function. And purpose isn't found in any physical place. It's something you yourself have to decide. My original point 'everybody needs purpose' remains valid. If you didn't need purpose you wouldn't have decided to make on for yourself.

Not at all what I'm saying. I'm talking about something bigger than oneself. Surviving or being happy don't count.


Surviving, seeking fame, being selfless and only giving to the rest of the world..etc. All of the count as purpose.

What about it? I'm not sure what you're asking me, sorry.

I think that even people who don't seek purpose in the supernatural still seek a purpose for their being here, even if it's not to a supernatural conclusion. Existential questions or talk of fate or God or any number of things. But we so often seek purpose bigger than ourselves. It drives perfect Atheists to try and cure cancer or to make a law or write a book or save a life or anything that makes them feel like they have a purpose.

We are driven by so much more than simply being happy or making sure we can afford a new TV. You acted as if only people who are religious can look for a purpose.

NOTE: You replied to CC's me too to my post but not my post

I suspect you seek purpose more than you let on. You just don't seek it in the same places. Why do you think so many people want their jobs or activities to change the world or make a difference?

Again with these odd philosophical absolute statements.

1) It is quite possible to have a purpose that you don't want.

Yes. I fail to see how this means that people don't 'need' purpose.


2) It is quite possible to not particularly want to have any purpose, and to live one's entire life without ever having one. (My old roommate is living proof)

Of course it is. I want that myself. But life isn't as fulfilling as life with a purpose.


3) Plenty of people decide that their life has a purpose without ever having actually considered if they want a purpose or not.
Wanting and needing are two different things.

But he did when he said ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel. Again, was he wrong, lying, or didn't know?

He did come to his people of Israel. No one, and I mean no one here, is disputing that.

However, most of of his people rejected him. His disiples spread the good word to both Gentiles and Jews alike.

He did come to his people of Israel. No one, and I mean no one here, is disputing that.

However, most of of his people rejected him. His disiples spread the good word to both Gentiles and Jews alike.

You're changing what you said.

He said "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal." ONLY is very important.

Meanwhile, what happened to "He was sent to bring us all salvation"? All of us or sent ONLY to the Jews. It can't be both.

I think that even people who don't seek purpose in the supernatural still seek a purpose for their being here, even if it's not to a supernatural conclusion. Existential questions or talk of fate or God or any number of things. But we so often seek purpose bigger than ourselves. It drives perfect Atheists to try and cure cancer or to make a law or write a book or save a life or anything that makes them feel like they have a purpose.

We are driven by so much more than simply being happy or making sure we can afford a new TV. You acted as if only people who are religious can look for a purpose.
Oh, I think I see what you're getting at.

My point was not that only religious people can look for meaning. It was more than not all people look for meaning, and that people don't need to search for meaning in order to have purpose in life.

Yes, people very often seek a higher purpose in life, and people can do this for religious or secular reasons. All I was pointing out is that there are also people who do not seek a higher purpose, and that it's a bit rude to insist that such people don't exist when I happen to be one.

I honestly have never really understood the whole "seeking my purpose" thing. I always accepted, as a simple reality, that I would have to decide for myself what my purpose might be, and that all my goals would have to be of my own making.

Naturally I am influenced by my upbringing, my culture, and my current societal context, so I'm not claiming I make these decisions in a vaccuum. I'm just saying that I am making the decisions, rather than looking for someone/something else to tell me what's what.

I feel driven to do many things in life, but not because I believe there is any "higher purpose" or "deeper meaning" behind what I do. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that my life will not serve any higher meaning or function, though I certainly would be happy if I could contribute something useful while I'm here. That would be a nice bonus.

Are you for or against the idea that good works are the result of salvation?

You say you agree that the idea is backward, but you quote Scripture that supports the idea.

Read the scripture reference again. Good works alone DOES NOT get one into heaven.

We all can do good works but it isn't enough to do good works if we want to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yes. I fail to see how this means that people don't 'need' purpose.

That particular statement has nothing to do with people "needing" purpose.


Of course it is. I want that myself. But life isn't as fulfilling as life with a purpose.

Fulfilling for whom? Plenty of people find their purposeless lives quite fulfilling. Again I am forced to invoke the memory of my former roommate.

Perhaps YOU do not feel as fulfilled by their lives, but that's not really what we're talking about, is it?


Wanting and needing are two different things.
Don't believe I have argued to the contrary, have I?

But Jesus said he was only preaching to the Jews. Graves already said that.

WE all said that but before he ascended into heaven after his resurrection, he told them to spread the word to all nations.

No, you're not. You are redefining the statement because you want it to say something else. Speaking to all nations is not the same as speaking to everyone in every nation even if you wish for it to say that really, really badly.

Let's see.

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal"
"Take my message to all nations (to speak to the lost sheep there)."
My explanation of all nations, no contradiction.

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal"
"Take my message to all people."
Your explanation of all people, contradiction.

Ok so where are you getting your lost sheep motif when Jesus told his disciples to spread the word to All Nations. I do not see the words "lost sheep" in the quote.

It puzzles me as to how modern, educated people can believe in religion. Puzzles, yet amuses me. Creationism. Hah!

Probably because we have personal experiences to back up our claims?

It puzzles me also. But it doesn't amuse me, it makes me angry. :(

And this from a nation called Commie Catholics?

One generally draws the connection between education and rationality. Those that are educated know that it is dangerous to blindly accept something as fact without compelling evidence supporting it.

Nimitz believed Midway was going to be attacked before it was confirmed that Midway was going to be attacked. Was he stupid in that despite him being an admiral and educated at Annapolis?

Nimitz believed Midway was going to be attacked before it was confirmed that Midway was going to be attacked. Was he stupid in that despite him being an admiral and educated at Annapolis?

I can only imagine that he knew a bit about strategy, what with Annapolis and all.

I can only imagine that he knew a bit about strategy, what with Annapolis and all.

The thing is, he had put all his efforts into defending Midway even before commander rochefort had that false messege sent confirming midway was the target. In essence, he believed and had faith that Midway was the real target.

The thing is, he had put all his efforts into defending Midway even before commander rochefort had that false messege sent confirming midway was the target. In essence, he believed and had faith that Midway was the real target.
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with the existence of god? Besides, maybe he just had a compelling intuitive feeling that Midway was going to be attacked.

The thing is, he had put all his efforts into defending Midway even before commander rochefort had that false messege sent confirming midway was the target. In essence, he believed and had faith that Midway was the real target.

*shrug* I believe and have faith that after I click submit, you'll be able to see this message. Tell me if I'm right, eh?

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with the existence of god? Besides, maybe he just had a compelling intuitive feeling that Midway was going to be attacked.

Did he? No he didn't. He guessed. Of course there was that thing about intercepting messeges but that was only at 10%. Rationality would not have had him sending every available ship he could get at Midway.

*shrug* I believe and have faith that after I click submit, you'll be able to see this message. Tell me if I'm right, eh?

Yes you are right :D

Did he? No he didn't. He guessed. Of course there was that thing about intercepting messeges but that was only at 10%. Rationality would not have had him sending every available ship he could get at Midway.
He must have had some kind of intuitive feeling if he happened to guess. Guessing in itself is an attempt to listen to one's intuitions. I never said rationality's the best way to go about everything. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.

He must have had some kind of intuitive feeling if he happened to guess. Guessing in itself is an attempt to listen to one's intuitions. I never said rationality's the best way to go about everything. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.
Perhaps the implication is that there was some kind of divine intervention? I dunno, 'cause I know fuckall about Midway.

He must have had some kind of intuitive feeling if he happened to guess. Guessing in itself is an attempt to listen to one's intuitions. I never said rationality's the best way to go about everything. I just don't see how this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.

Since the comment was to someone who said that educated people shouldn't have faith because it is irrational does not understand that we are all irrational.

Perhaps the implication is that there was some kind of divine intervention? I dunno, 'cause I know fuckall about Midway.

You know nothing about Midway? Heck, I've studied the Battle of Midway. Its fascinating :D

Since the comment was to someone who said that educated people shouldn't have faith because it is irrational does not understand that we are all irrational.
Stating that all humans will, at one point or another, probably display irrational behavior is not at all the same as saying that we ARE irrational.

It's like how my father is currently bald, but he was not always bald, and if he were to get hair transplants he would cease to be bald.

Did he? No he didn't. He guessed. Of course there was that thing about intercepting messeges but that was only at 10%. Rationality would not have had him sending every available ship he could get at Midway.

No, it probably wouldn't...What were we debating again?

You know nothing about Midway? Heck, I've studied the Battle of Midway. Its fascinating :D
I've always been a bit more taken with the American Civil War. Not sure why, to be honest. I think it might have something to do with the fact that most of the people I admire from that war happened to be on the "wrong" side.

But enough of my hijacking...

Stating that all humans will, at one point or another, probably display irrational behavior is not at all the same as saying that we ARE irrational.

It's like how my father is currently bald, but he was not always bald, and if he were to get hair transplants he would cease to be bald.

Ah but we are irrational. Each and everyone of us. If we weren't irrational then why would we be debating God on an internet chat forum :D

Perhaps the implication is that there was some kind of divine intervention? I dunno, 'cause I know fuckall about Midway.
Teehee. :D Maybe it's a modern miracle of God's divine plan for mankind...or maybe God just doesn't like the Japanese. :p

I've always been a bit more taken with the American Civil War. Not sure why, to be honest. I think it might have something to do with the fact that most of the people I admire from that war happened to be on the "wrong" side.

But enough of my hijacking...

we have something in common Bottle. I like the Civil War as well :)

Ah but we are irrational. Each and everyone of us. If we weren't irrational then why would we be debating God on an internet chat forum :D
Irrational and masochistic are two completely different ballgames. :)

Ah but we are irrational. Each and everyone of us. If we weren't irrational then why would we be debating God on an internet chat forum :D
Because we're all very "special" people with no lives? :p

Because we're all very "special" people with no lives? :p

I'll drink to that :D

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?

The thing about God is that he is very mysterious, but with a divine plan from beginning to end. In that plan there is suffering, but for a reason for the better good. You may never see why that was supposed to happen, and later maybe so. The thing is that it happens for a reason you just have to stick to your faith in him. God has your life like this: the more suffering you go through, the stronger he'll lift you back up on your feet, God seems to have more in store for even if it is generations down the road. If you'd like spirtual guidence please contact me on nationstates.

I'll drink to that :D
*cheers*

Where's Straughn and his endless supply of smilies when you need him? (yes, I am too lazy to look for them online.)

I simply have one question for all you athiests out there.

What created the material that was inside the big bang, or in fact the the big bang itself?

Also, don't forget about the conservation of matter and energy which states that matter nor energy can be created our destroyed.

Oops, looks like science just got hypcritical...

Maybe it was His big meatball testicles.

I believe that God has people live long lives so they'll repent. He'll find ways for you to come back to him. But that's not always the case, but have you noticed that old crabby bitches never seem die such as my neighbor, they are so mean. And the saying the good die young. But that is never always the case. Just hear me out.

Read the scripture reference again. Good works alone DOES NOT get one into heaven.

We all can do good works but it isn't enough to do good works if we want to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

I completely agree, in order to get to heaven we mudt have faith in Jesus Christ and that he was our savior, replacing the lamb for our sins the world over.

I completely agree, in order to get to heaven we mudt have faith in Jesus Christ and that he was our savior, replacing the lamb for our sins the world over.

You are most indeed correct. May the blessing of the Lord Savior be upon you my Christian friend.

You are most indeed correct. May the blessing of the Lord Savior be upon you my Christian friend.
Thank you and the same goes for you.

Read the scripture reference again. Good works alone DOES NOT get one into heaven.

We all can do good works but it isn't enough to do good works if we want to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Very astute... thanks, I hadn't actually seen it till you smacked me across the eyes with it...

"Good works alone"... an all-important phrase - obviously, then, good works MUST be possiible without the belief, or 'good works alone' is redundant.

Very astute... thanks, I hadn't actually seen it till you smacked me across the eyes with it...

"Good works alone"... an all-important phrase - obviously, then, good works MUST be possiible without the belief, or 'good works alone' is redundant.

That is indeed correct. I have a friend who isn't a christian and yet does good work.

That is indeed correct. I have a friend who isn't a christian and yet does good work.

I've been known to do the occassional good work, myself... but I'm an 'eebil godless heathen'...

That is indeed correct. I have a friend who isn't a christian and yet does good work.
I find it quite interesting that someone could be a great person, do good works constantly, and still end up in hell/purgatory.

I must ask, are you prepared to damn Buddha, the Dali Lama, and Gandhi all to hell?

I find it quite interesting that someone could be a great person, do good works constantly, and still end up in hell/purgatory.

I must ask, are you prepared to damn Buddha, the Dali Lama, and Gandhi all to hell?

I can only go by what I believe. "Good works alone does not garuntee admittence into the Kingdom of Heaven."

In other words, there are other requirements that will garuntee admittance into the Kingdom.

I can only go by what I believe. "Good works alone does not garuntee admittence into the Kingdom of Heaven."

In other words, there are other requirements that will garuntee admittance into the Kingdom.
so the not-so-pretty-but-still-accurate answer would be that yes, the people I mentioned are pretty well assured a seat in hell?

so the not-so-pretty-but-still-accurate answer would be that yes, the people I mentioned are pretty well assured a seat in hell?

If they meet all the requirements....

But then....

Who am I to judge who actually goes to heaven and who doesn't?

Ok so where are you getting your lost sheep motif when Jesus told his disciples to spread the word to All Nations. I do not see the words "lost sheep" in the quote.

I already argued this point. I'm saying it is the only way it's consistent. It can mean that or it could mean all people. So if analyze the two possible ways to take it, one way makes Jesus wrong the first time and the other doesn't. I prefer the one that doesn't suggest beyond all reason that Jesus must have contradicted a theme he continually endorsed for all of his life.

I must ask, are you prepared to damn Buddha, the Dali Lama, and Gandhi all to hell?[/QUOTE]

Good question. That presumes they are innocent. Do we damn them or did they damn themselves?

If they meet all the requirements....

But then....

Who am I to judge who actually goes to heaven and who doesn't?
the reason I ask is that it seems incredibly...well...6th grade-ish...
"I have a club and you can't join so there!"

Many, if not most, of the great men in history were not Christian. If God is really so petty as to say "you didn't believe in me, so you can burn", regardless of their good deeds, such as, oh, I don't know...liberating a nation? Speaking and acting out against crimes against humanity? You know, the basics, the I think he loses that whole "benevolence" title, and becomes a whiny brat who can't stand to not get his way.

edit: I'm not asking for an official statement. I really am just curious about what you personally think these mens fates were

I already argued this point. I'm saying it is the only way it's consistent. It can mean that or it could mean all people. So if analyze the two possible ways to take it, one way makes Jesus wrong the first time and the other doesn't. I prefer the one that doesn't suggest beyond all reason that Jesus must have contradicted a theme he continually endorsed for all of his life.

I just go with what the Bible says.

Did he come for Israel? yes!

Did he tell his disciples to spread the word to all nations? yes!

the reason I ask is that it seems incredibly...well...6th grade-ish...
"I have a club and you can't join so there!"

Many, if not most, of the great men in history were not Christian. If God is really so petty as to say "you didn't believe in me, so you can burn", regardless of their good deeds, such as, oh, I don't know...liberating a nation? Speaking and acting out against crimes against humanity? You know, the basics, the I think he loses that whole "benevolence" title, and becomes a whiny brat who can't stand to not get his way.

Of course - one must bear in mind my sparkling Atheist credentials, but - I find it hard to credit that an omnipotent creator, is going to be too tightly bound by a rulebook he is supposed to have written.

If there IS a god, I personally think it more likely he sketches out a 'best policy' rulebook, but doesn't limit HIMSELF to it when making his choices.

Good question. That presumes they are innocent. Do we damn them or did they damn themselves?
I'd argue pretty easily that those three men contributed more to humanity than most could ever dream to.
I'd also argue that they are in no way damned, not only because I don't believe in damnation, but, assuming it exists, they more than nearly anyone would deserve a seat in heaven.

I just go with what the Bible says.

Did he come for Israel? yes!

Did he tell his disciples to spread the word to all nations? yes!

Were are still getting bogged down on the specifics, though.

During the earthly ministry - he DENIES the Gentiles. Explicitly. Flat out. He says he ONLY came for the Jews.

And, therein lies the rub. HE says ONLY the Jews, and then he (allegedly) says everyone.

If his mission was everyone - he lied about ONLY the Jews. If his mission was ONLY the Jews, he lied about also saving Gentiles.

I do believe that some superior being exists (but I prefer to think of it not as ‘God’, but as ‘Supreme Mind), however, I don’t believe it is ‘God’ Christianity or any other religions try to portrait.

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

I am truly sorry about your loss. Sadly, I believe that God, being dramatically different from us, may not view things as we do.

You're changing what you said.

He said "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal." ONLY is very important.

Meanwhile, what happened to "He was sent to bring us all salvation"? All of us or sent ONLY to the Jews. It can't be both.

Corny, you've still not really answered the question. He said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep. You say he was sent to all. Was he wrong or was he lying?

Your reply avoids the question entirely and then when I replied you dropped the argument again. What's it take to get an answer to this one?

Of course - one must bear in mind my sparkling Atheist credentials, but - I find it hard to credit that an omnipotent creator, is going to be too tightly bound by a rulebook he is supposed to have written.

If there IS a god, I personally think it more likely he sketches out a 'best policy' rulebook, but doesn't limit HIMSELF to it when making his choices.
I guess I just have a bit of trouble with a few things. The whole mentality that these great men are less likely to get to Heaven just because they believed in the "wrong" god is rediculous. The fact that by believing in a god can outweigh changing the course of history for the better is...well...stupid.

And if he was bound by the rulebook, then I would have to say I see him as a kid who makes up the rules of the game, and changes them to favor him.

At one time, the Jews were the "chosen people". Then he throws in the Jesus card, and the Jews who don't convert to follow him are damned?

Were are still getting bogged down on the specifics, though.

During the earthly ministry - he DENIES the Gentiles. Explicitly. Flat out. He says he ONLY came for the Jews.

And, therein lies the rub. HE says ONLY the Jews, and then he (allegedly) says everyone.

If his mission was everyone - he lied about ONLY the Jews. If his mission was ONLY the Jews, he lied about also saving Gentiles.
There is also the point that he was the Messiah, literally, King of the Jews.
a king has power of his people, and his people only. The King of England would not speak to or for the French. The king of the Jews would not speak for or to the gentiles.

I just go with what the Bible says.

Did he come for Israel? yes!

Did he tell his disciples to spread the word to all nations? yes!

He didn't just come for Isreal. Jesus said, JESUS said, he came ONLY for the lost sheep of Isreal. That doesn't only mean the nation of Isreal. The lost sheep of Israel are the Jews. It reference Jews, all Jews and ONLY Jews. So when he was sent to all nations it either means he was sent to the Jews of all nations or he was wrong or lying when throughout his life he said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep.

If you got by what the Bible says, here is what it says -
Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Stop trying to make it seem like it was just one thing he was sent for.

Matthew10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Hmmm... seems like Jesus talks about how there are towns with people of a particular ethnicity, within the nation they are travelling and he tells them to only go to the particular ethnicity, the Jews. Hmmm... kind of defeats that whole nations mean everyone argument, now doesn't it?

I guess I just have a bit of trouble with a few things. The whole mentality that these great men are less likely to get to Heaven just because they believed in the "wrong" god is rediculous. The fact that by believing in a god can outweigh changing the course of history for the better is...well...stupid.

And if he was bound by the rulebook, then I would have to say I see him as a kid who makes up the rules of the game, and changes them to favor him.

At one time, the Jews were the "chosen people". Then he throws in the Jesus card, and the Jews who don't convert to follow him are damned?

There IS a 'logic' to it... but it is not the 'logic' we might choose to apply to anything else. In each of the points you raise, I can easily pop on my "Devilled Avocado" head, and work out a theological explanation - but it wouldn't be one that holds water (What the hell am I talking about? My head holds water?) with 'conventional' logic.

But, I agree with the essence of what you are saying - it isn't all that omnipotent... not godlike.. to get pulled into trivialities. It would be a remarkably.. human... god.

It's like a point I made once before - why do so many definitions of god make him so... well, so much like US?

There is also the point that he was the Messiah, literally, King of the Jews.
a king has power of his people, and his people only. The King of England would not speak to or for the French. The king of the Jews would not speak for or to the gentiles.

I don't know... from 1066 onwards, the English monarchies have been largely French or German... :D

But, yes - I get the point. :)

I'd argue pretty easily that those three men contributed more to humanity than most could ever dream to.
I'd also argue that they are in no way damned, not only because I don't believe in damnation, but, assuming it exists, they more than nearly anyone would deserve a seat in heaven.

If people could be good enough they would be at the top. I see what where you are coming from but respectfully disagree. It is my opinion that all deserve spiritual death. Surely they are more deserving than most though.

There IS a 'logic' to it... but it is not the 'logic' we might choose to apply to anything else. In each of the points you raise, I can easily pop on my "Devilled Avocado" head, and work out a theological explanation - but it wouldn't be one that holds water (What the hell am I talking about? My head holds water?) with 'conventional' logic.

But, I agree with the essence of what you are saying - it isn't all that omnipotent... not godlike.. to get pulled into trivialities. It would be a remarkably.. human... god.

It's like a point I made once before - why do so many definitions of god make him so... well, so much like US?
haha...ya know, I'm quite impressed that despite my rambling and incoherance right now, you get what I'm saying, and have better answers than the ones that I've been questioning...

I got into a long debate (okay, so it was a full blown argument...) today with my best friends mother starting with her telling me I was going to hell (I was wearing a star of david pendant) and ended with her dictating that everyone who isn't baptist is going to hell without question...which is what brings forth these questions. Corny seems to be the closest to her in most regards of theology, and so in my attempts to arm myself against this woman, he gets targeted;)

Of course - one must bear in mind my sparkling Atheist credentials, but - I find it hard to credit that an omnipotent creator, is going to be too tightly bound by a rulebook he is supposed to have written.

If there IS a god, I personally think it more likely he sketches out a 'best policy' rulebook, but doesn't limit HIMSELF to it when making his choices.

The problem with an omnipotent creator is the paradox that will always arise. Will the all powerful being create a rock that it can not lift? If it does, he isn't all powerful. If he doesn't, he isnt all powerful.

If people could be good enough they would be at the top. I see what where you are coming from but respectfully disagree. It is my opinion that all deserve spiritual death. Surely they are more deserving than most though.

At the top?

That makes no sense.... surely God is 'at the top' because he made the whole shooting-match, and is the only one with Mod access?

Why would 'good enough' to enter ehaven disrupt the heirarchy? It's not like 'good enough' would HAVE TO equate to perfect...

The problem with an omnipotent creator is the paradox that will always arise. Will the all powerful being create a rock that it can not lift? If it does, he isn't all powerful. If he doesn't, he isnt all powerful.

Or can he make a car that is really a tree? Or can he make your argument and actually proper argument? You're right, he can do none of these thing. Excellent argument.

A couple points on the subject of the "sheep". Keepin mind John the Baptist's line of "Behold the Lamb of God! Who takes away the sins of the WORLd!"

Then there is the progression of sheep sacrifices!

Abel offers an animal sacrifice for himself. (We'll call that sacrifice a sheep :) )
One sheep for one person

At the passover in Egypt, a sheep is sacrificed so the angel of death will pass over the family.
One sheep for one family.

Enter the priesthood and the yearly sacrifice.
One sheep for a nation.

Enter Jesus.
One sheep for the world.

Hope this illustration helps a bit!

Or can he make a car that is really a tree? Or can he make your argument and actually proper argument? You're right, he can do none of these thing. Excellent argument.
^?
This made me confused about your sarcasm.

haha...ya know, I'm quite impressed that despite my rambling and incoherance right now, you get what I'm saying, and have better answers than the ones that I've been questioning...

I got into a long debate (okay, so it was a full blown argument...) today with my best friends mother starting with her telling me I was going to hell (I was wearing a star of david pendant) and ended with her dictating that everyone who isn't baptist is going to hell without question...which is what brings forth these questions. Corny seems to be the closest to her in most regards of theology, and so in my attempts to arm myself against this woman, he gets targeted;)

Well, I can tell you what the answers would be - but I can't believe them for you... :) For that kind of 'honesty in journalism' you are going to need Corneliu, I think.

I've heard the exact same arguments, and it all comes down to the idea of salvation by grace, and the ONLY way to the father, being through the son. I certainly don't think it is the ONLY way to read the scripture... and, judging by the vast number of Christian denominations, it seems unlikely that I am alone in THAT assertion.

^?
This made me confused about your sarcasm.

The fact that He gave the intelligence to figure out what a contradiction is doesn't make it an argument.

Jocabia, you seem to be suggesting that God can or only does things that are logically possible. How...limiting.

Abel offers an animal sacrifice for himself. (We'll call that sacrifice a sheep :) )
One sheep for one person


But, of course, God has ALWAYS preferred those human sacrifices, right?

I mean - Cain sacrifices his own brother, and is rewarded with immortality; Abraham is blessed because he is willing to slit his own son's throat; the world is saved because God has his own son sacrificed...

The fact that He gave the intelligence to figure out what a contradiction is doesn't make it an argument.

It makes for an excellent argument. Someone stated that their God is all powerful and can do anything. With all powerful comes with a paradox and contridictions. Point out what's wrong and it won't become an argument. Otherwise...

Well, I can tell you what the answers would be - but I can't believe them for you... :) For that kind of 'honesty in journalism' you are going to need Corneliu, I think.

I've heard the exact same arguments, and it all comes down to the idea of salvation by grace, and the ONLY way to the father, being through the son. I certainly don't think it is the ONLY way to read the scripture... and, judging by the vast number of Christian denominations, it seems unlikely that I am alone in THAT assertion.
haha...well, I've been confronted several times by this whole "you're going to hell" from the innocent idea of "I'll pray for you" right up to the fun little conflict tonight...but I have never understood it. And every time I get it again, I try to understand it, usually getting no where. So maybe this time I'll make a bit of progress, eh?
I'm also a bit in shock that it came from this woman of all people, who tends to regard me highly.

At the top?

That makes no sense.... surely God is 'at the top' because he made the whole shooting-match, and is the only one with Mod access?

Why would 'good enough' to enter ehaven disrupt the heirarchy? It's not like 'good enough' would HAVE TO equate to perfect...

Aye, but then there would be the question of "what is good enough?"! Are you good enough? Am I good enough? You've probobly heard this, but it would be cruel for God to say you needed to be "good enough" to get to heaven. Even if he could somehow define it, how would we be able to measure ourselves? What if you needed to do one more nice thing to get into heaven? Instead, he maked it easy by saying we all aren't "good enough", but provides an alternative to being good, which is faith. I could say faith is something easy, but apparently it is not, not even for the Christians! or at least not for me.

Jocabia, you seem to be suggesting that God can or only does things that are logically possible. How...limiting.
well, couldn't it follow the rest of his rules? for example...God created the laws of nature, and has to follow them. He can't suddenly do something that breaks the law of gravity unless he changes the law.

Likewise, God created logic. He must follow those rules unless he changes them.

Like I said, the little kid making up a game as he goes.

well, couldn't it follow the rest of his rules? for example...God created the laws of nature, and has to follow them. He can't suddenly do something that breaks the law of gravity unless he changes the law.

Likewise, God created logic. He must follow those rules unless he changes them.

Like I said, the little kid making up a game as he goes.

When has God ever followed his 'rule' of logic? Supposedly parting seas, letting a man survive in the stomach of a whale, and multiplying fish/bread whatever, isn't exactly on the logic meter.

Aye, but then there would be the question of "what is good enough?"! Are you good enough? Am I good enough? You've probobly heard this, but it would be cruel for God to say you needed to be "good enough" to get to heaven. Even if he could somehow define it, how would we be able to measure ourselves? What if you needed to do one more nice thing to get into heaven? Instead, he maked it easy by saying we all aren't "good enough", but provides an alternative to being good, which is faith. I could say faith is something easy, but apparently it is not, not even for the Christians! or at least not for me.

You create a false dichotomy - it doesn't have be an amorphous line of 'good enough' and 'not good enough'.

How about a simple - "we've weighed the good things you did against the bad things. Good things win. Come on in"?

And - it doesn't matter how WE judge it, surely? We are, after all, not the final judges?

Lastly - how can you say 'faith' is FAIRER than a value of good? Faith simply relieies on believing what you are told - it's passive. Doing good is active... shouldn't that count for more?

Aye, but then there would be the question of "what is good enough?"! Are you good enough? Am I good enough? You've probobly heard this, but it would be cruel for God to say you needed to be "good enough" to get to heaven. Even if he could somehow define it, how would we be able to measure ourselves? What if you needed to do one more nice thing to get into heaven? Instead, he maked it easy by saying we all aren't "good enough", but provides an alternative to being good, which is faith. I could say faith is something easy, but apparently it is not, not even for the Christians! or at least not for me.
but there is a distinct difference between faith and doing good. Faith is inherently endocentric. You have faith to benefit yourself in some how, be it salvation, guidance, what have you.
doing good is inherently exocentric. You do good to help other people.

So how could faith ever replace or compensate for a lack of doing good?

Jocabia, you seem to be suggesting that God can or only does things that are logically possible. How...limiting.

I hope that's a joke. I don't know what God's limitations are, but I do know that are ability to understand makes certain things impossible to digest.

Can God make the statement, "this statement is false" true? He can't? How limiting? It's not a logical argument.

When has God ever followed his 'rule' of logic? Supposedly parting seas, letting a man survive in the stomach of a whale, and multiplying fish/bread whatever, isn't exactly on the logic meter.
if going by the bible, sure. But then, it would also be concieveable that he could change the rules and then change them back.

haha...well, I've been confronted several times by this whole "you're going to hell" from the innocent idea of "I'll pray for you" right up to the fun little conflict tonight...but I have never understood it. And every time I get it again, I try to understand it, usually getting no where. So maybe this time I'll make a bit of progress, eh?
I'm also a bit in shock that it came from this woman of all people, who tends to regard me highly.

I've actually heard it said before, that the thing that makes going to heaven worthwhile, is the idea that the sinners will be tormented for all eternity.

After you hear that in a conversation - you stop being surprised at the spiritual extremes people might endorse...

It makes for an excellent argument. Someone stated that their God is all powerful and can do anything. With all powerful comes with a paradox and contridictions. Point out what's wrong and it won't become an argument. Otherwise...

No, it's not. It's a logically flawed argument. What you mentioned isn't a real world limitation, it's a hypothetical limitation. We make a logical distinction based on the way we think and we notice that something we know to be logically impossible is *gasp* logically impossible. It's logical masturbation. It's not an argument.

Can God make the statement, "this statement is false" true?

Yes. He did it last night. He called me to tell me, I was supposed to pass the message on.

He's starting on a Rubik Cube, tonight...

When has God ever followed his 'rule' of logic? Supposedly parting seas, letting a man survive in the stomach of a whale, and multiplying fish/bread whatever, isn't exactly on the logic meter.

Do you know what logic is? You are talking about the rules of nature, logic doesn't play into it.

I've actually heard it said before, that the thing that makes going to heaven worthwhile, is the idea that the sinners will be tormented for all eternity.

After you hear that in a conversation - you stop being surprised at the spiritual extremes people might endorse...
actually reminds me of a joke...
Satan is guiding new arrivals around hell. It looks like a 5 star resort...gold and crystal everywhere, and wonderful music. They turn a corner, and there is a pool of acid, screams of torment, pain, and suffering. A man asks if the first area was just a cover.
Satan responds "No, that is for the Christians. They seem to prefer it that way.

I've started to really look at heaven like a country club...it is the "in" thing to go there because it is restrictive.

Yes. He did it last night. He called me to tell me, I was supposed to pass the message on.

He's starting on a Rubik Cube, tonight...

A: Can he make the idea of the number 7 the same as the idea of the number 4?
B: Yes.
A: But then it would be the number 4 and no longer the idea of the number 7.
B: But...
A: See how brilliant I am.

People don't realize that we limit something with our own way of thinking and then stroke ourselves by claiming that we've proven a limit of God because we defined something in a way that limits it. It proves our own limited perception and has nothing to do with the capabilities of God.

well, couldn't it follow the rest of his rules? for example...God created the laws of nature, and has to follow them. He can't suddenly do something that breaks the law of gravity unless he changes the law.

Likewise, God created logic. He must follow those rules unless he changes them.

Like I said, the little kid making up a game as he goes.

That sounds quite plausible.

No, it's not. It's a logically flawed argument. What you mentioned isn't a real world limitation, it's a hypothetical limitation. We make a logical distinction based on the way we think and we notice that something we know to be logically impossible is *gasp* logically impossible. It's logical masturbation. It's not an argument.

This whole argument is hypothetical. Even our talking about a God is hypothetical. You're beating around the bush, it stays an argument.

I personally think the bad would outway the good in most or all cases. Not really something you can argue with evidence for either way, so I won't.

You are right that works matter a whole lot more than faith. Usually we demonstrate our faith in something by following with some kind of action, i.e., believing the chair will hold you up, and then sitting in it. Romans talks about Abram being justified by faith, and James shows how his actions showed us his faith.
In Hebrews 5 and 6, the author is dealing with Christians whom he calls infants needing milk because they are like children who keep saying the prayer because they are worried about their salvation, but aren't doing anything else. The author tells them, and i'm paraphrasing, saying "the prayer" over and over isn't doing any good. If you want to be sure of your salvation, do good works and see the fruit of that as a demonstration of your salvation.
Off to bed now. sisters graduating in the morn. Good talking.

This whole argument is hypothetical. Even our talking about a God is hypothetical. You're beating around the bush, it stays an argument.

Ha, if you just declare it so, then it must be. It's a flawed argument because you expose a logical contradiction. It's a contradiction in logic and has nothing to do with God. You've already shown you don't know the difference by your claim that parting the sea is a logical issue instead of a natural issue.

Can God be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time? Not in our heads he can't because we define it that way. It's a problem in the way we have to define things, not a problem in the nature of God.

This argument has been debunked 1000 times on 1000 thread on 1000 sites. It's amusing that you act like you've finally cornered the argument.

We cannot perceive omnipotent. Just like we can't actually perceive infinite or forever or timelessness.

For example, did God exist before time? It's a nonsense question because before time, the word BEFORE doesn't mean anything. It's all limits in the way we address the world, not limits of God.

A: Can he make the idea of the number 7 the same as the idea of the number 4?
B: Yes.
A: But then it would be the number 4 and no longer the idea of the number 7.
B: But...
A: See how brilliant I am.

People don't realize that we limit something with our own way of thinking and then stroke ourselves by claiming that we've proven a limit of God because we defined something in a way that limits it. It proves our own limited perception and has nothing to do with the capabilities of God.

Your argument consists of only saying " Well since we humans thought of it, and since it's putting a limit on God, therefore it's not an argument." Since we are talking about his capability it is valid to suggest that he has his own limits when we talk of what-if situations...especially since this whole talk is about a being we can not see in the first place.

I hope that's a joke. I don't know what God's limitations are, but I do know that are ability to understand makes certain things impossible to digest.

Quite.

And I was only being half-serious.

Can God make the statement, "this statement is false" true?

I think so. In fact, I would suggest that God can do so without generating a paradox at all. To move back to the argument that started this (I forget which poster it was), can God create a rock so large that he cannot lift it? I would be inclined to answer "yes" and that given his omnipotence he could do away with any paradox generated by the action.

Ha, if you just declare it so, then it must be. It's a flawed argument because you expose a logical contradiction. It's a contradiction in logic and has nothing to do with God. You've already shown you don't know the difference by your claim that parting the sea is a logical issue instead of a natural issue.

Can God be omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time? Not in our heads he can't because we define it that way. It's a problem in the way we have to define things, not a problem in the nature of God.

This argument has been debunked 1000 times on 1000 thread on 1000 sites. It's amusing that you act like you've finally cornered the argument.

We cannot perceive omnipotent. Just like we can't actually perceive infinite or forever or timelessness.

For example, did God exist before time? It's a nonsense question because before time, the word BEFORE doesn't mean anything. It's all limits in the way we address the world, not limits of God.

Your rhetoric concerning this issue is amusing at best. Your stance is solely on the fact that we are unable to preceive God's full power because of our human logic. It's all very convienent for you to say this, because there is no way you can prove the actual issue with any actual evidence,hypothetical even to back this up.

Quite.

And I was only being half-serious.



I think so. In fact, I would suggest that God can do so without generating a paradox at all. To move back to the argument that started this (I forget which poster it was), can God create a rock so large that he cannot lift it? I would be inclined to answer "yes" and that given his omnipotence he could do away with any paradox generated by the action.

The point is the paradox is a problem in our understanding and only our understanding. As you say, the paradox only exists if God allows it to exist.

To us it seems necessary because of a limitation in our understanding the same way the idea of percieving a beginning to time seems required though even the term beginning indicates that prior to the beginning things were different when in fact 'prior' to time the word 'prior' is nonsensical.

Our logic is limited to the way our minds work. Those are our limits.

Your rhetoric concerning this issue is amusing at best. Your stance is solely on the fact that we are unable to preceive God's full power because of our human logic. It's all very convienent for you to say this, because there is no way you can prove the actual issue with any actual evidence,hypothetical even to back this up.
Ironically, your entire argument is based on exactly the opposite. Jocabia argues that we can't percieve God by our rules. You argue that we have to. Essentially, the entire discussion will consist of complex ways of saying "yes it is" and "no it isn't"

Your rhetoric concerning this issue is amusing at best. Your stance is solely on the fact that we are unable to preceive God's full power because of our human logic. It's all very convienent for you to say this, because there is no way you can prove the actual issue with any actual evidence,hypothetical even to back this up.

I can demonstrate our limitation and that it's ours. What existed before time?

Yes

Quite.

And I was only being half-serious.



I think so. In fact, I would suggest that God can do so without generating a paradox at all. To move back to the argument that started this (I forget which poster it was), can God create a rock so large that he cannot lift it? I would be inclined to answer "yes" and that given his omnipotence he could do away with any paradox generated by the action.

Then with your logic we can safely say that nothing applies to God. He can do whatever he wishes, condictions do not apply, paradoxes are non-existant, and everything else we humans believe to be impossible, is possible.

It's ludicrous.

Ironically, your entire argument is based on exactly the opposite. Jocabia argues that we can't percieve God by our rules. You argue that we have to. Essentially, the entire discussion will consist of complex ways of saying "yes it is" and "no it isn't"

The point is that we do perceive God by our rules, just as he argues we must, but I simply recognize where our limitations lie. He wants to deny our limitations and press them forward as God's limitations. I'm not arguing that God MUST be omnipotent. I simply argue that proving we're limited doesn't prove that God is.

Then with your logic we can safely say that nothing applies to God. He can do whatever he wishes, condictions do not apply, paradoxes are non-existant, and everything else we humans believe to be impossible, is possible.

It's ludicrous.

Why? On what do you base your argument? Is there some aspect of God you've perceived that makes you argument the only possible argument?

I can demonstrate our limitation and that it's ours. What existed before time?

Another paradox. Time by definition would have always existed.

Because of these complex yes it is, and no it isn't...is exactly why I don't believe in God. In order to believe in him, it calls for blind faith...nothing can be proved.

The point is the paradox is a problem in our understanding and only our understanding. As you say, the paradox only exists if God allows it to exist.

To us it seems necessary because of a limitation in our understanding the same way the idea of percieving a beginning to time seems required though even the term beginning indicates that prior to the beginning things were different when in fact 'prior' to time the word 'prior' is nonsensical.

Our logic is limited to the way our minds work. Those are our limits.

Yes. I agreed with your statement to that effect with my response of "quite". Rather sensible of you to point it out in this debate. Too bad more folks don't understand it.

Another paradox. Time by definition would have always existed.

Because of these complex yes it is, and no it isn't...is exactly why I don't believe in God. In order to believe in him, it calls for blind faith...nothing can be proved.

Time would not always have existed. If that were true you just debunked the Big Bang theory. Scientists and people who are students of logic should and usually do understand that because our understanding is limited does not mean that all other things are.

The paradox is in you, not in God, nor even in the real world. An 'origin' to time is absolutely possible but because we can't logical state how that occurs your ability to perceive it breaks down. The limits of your perception are just that. They do no define the world we live nor what exists outside that world.

Then with your logic we can safely say that nothing applies to God. He can do whatever he wishes, condictions do not apply, paradoxes are non-existant, and everything else we humans believe to be impossible, is possible.

It's ludicrous.

Welcome to premising an omnipotent being and understanding that you are not omnipotent.

God=Omnipotent

You=Not Omnipotent

God can do away with paradoxes, and You cannot. Makes perfect sense.

Because of these complex yes it is, and no it isn't...is exactly why I don't believe in God. In order to believe in him, it calls for blind faith...nothing can be proved.haha...I agree. I was just rambling.

One of those "ignore the man behind the curtain" moments...

As you were.

Time is the perfect example. The leading theory of the origin of the universe, including time, is the Big Bang. The very idea of an origin is that it did not ALWAYS exist. We can even calculate to some degree how old the universe is, and thus how long time has existed as well. The problem is that we can't even verbally discribe the very beginning because we don't have the terminolgy because we are limited beings. We are time-base, finite beings. We can't actually logically fathom omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, being 'outside' of time, being 'outside' of space, etc. These are limitations because of what we are. If a two-dimensional universe existed and they were trying to describe how we live, it would be impossibly difficult to describe becuase they don't think in terms of being three-dimensional. (yes, I simplifed that, but it makes the point).

I don't think there is any god or supreme being, except maybe distant extraterrestrials who don't care what happens to us, so I think we should just do what we want to do and not worry about fairiies. ghost, witches, demons, the devil or gods or a god who are nonexistant. I don't think people should have imaginary friends. I would say that those are for children, but I never had an imagiinary friend, and that includes god and jesus!
:rolleyes:

Wow... shouldn't this have been locked ages ago...?

For the record, yes I do believe in God

Wow... shouldn't this have been locked ages ago...?

For the record, yes I do believe in God

Why should have it been locked? It is clear that the non-beleivers and the beleivers both think they are right even though most of the beleivers are right. Things like these help you to express yourself you know.

In this thread we have seen opinions from a wide variety of people, atheists,agnostic, christians, Catholics, and people from other beliefs/religions. The main topic was if God Existed and altough the polls show otherwise, I would say that the believers have won this argument. Not only have they shown clear evidence of God's existence (though still not believed by most) but also debated on other Religious and Socio-Religious matters, such as God's Omniopotence, Why is there a God, Jesus, the Bible, de-moralisation of society, miracle's credibilty, Gays, Aborition and so on.

There were many Insults from both sides, altough many were in anger of an offense from the other side, I must say that there were some people who just came here to show how rude they are.

It surprises me that from the posts I read, there wasn't a Single conversion and vice-versa because some of the posts were very convincing. I would sa this is because of the many strong-willed people in their beliefs and because of not accepting what you fear is true (again may be vice-versa).

On a personal note I participated from pages 333 to some 400 mostly. In these posts that I posted I learned firstly to respect atheist people, since admitingly before I sort of detested them for their, what I percieved scientific exucuses, now I have learned are opinions ( not all of them). I also learned that much more people than I suspected don't believe in God, or if they believe they doubt most of the Church's teachings. I have also learned that people from different places have different views on how far you can go in your language. Also I have learned that in an argument you must not lose your temper or many people who might agree with you before, would not agree with you afterwards. But most importantly I have learned that I beleive in God more than anytime before in my life, and that I am truly a devout Catholic and care about it since when somone offended my religion I reacted.

This thread has taught me that to strenghten your faith, beliefs, you have to debate/argument it with somone who is at the other end of the spectrum. I personally thank all those who argued against me, since they have helped me in my Faith instead of weakining it as some of them intended ( only a very few especially on day 1 at the begining) even though I sometimes offended them, I apologise and thank them.

Why should have it been locked? It is clear that the non-beleivers and the beleivers both think they are right [gibber]. Things like these help you to express yourself you know. I think a more likely explanation is that if this topic gets locked, there'll be a part II moments later.

To prove myself right:The main topic was if God Existed and altough the polls show otherwise, I would say that the believers have won this argument.You already did, but repeating it doesn't make it true.Not only have they shown clear evidence of God's existence (though still not believed by most)If you'd shown "clear evidence", there'd be no question of believing it. As it is, you've shown no evidence at all.but also debated on other Religious and Socio-Religious matters, such as God's Omniopotence, Why is there a God, Jesus, the Bible, de-moralisation of society, miracle's credibilty, Gays, Aborition and so on.Omnipotence conflicts with free will. Omnipotence conflicts with omniscience. Omniscience conflicts with free will. Omnipresence conflicts with the idea of hell. Omnipotence conflicts with the idea of the devil.

When you've sorted out those problems, you can start concentrating on where exactly your invisible friend commanded you to discriminate against non-Christians & Christians with views different from your own.There were many Insults from both sides, altough many were in anger of an offense from the other side, I must say that there were some people who just came here to show how rude they are.Yea.. Fundamentalism & orthodoxy is extremely offensive & rude.It surprises me that from the posts I read, there wasn't a Single conversion and vice-versa because some of the posts were very convincing.Well.. If the Bible can't convince Christians to abandon their faith, it's unlikely anything can. I won't speculate on what drives people to religion.But most importantly I have learned that I beleive in God more than anytime before in my life, and that I am truly a devout Catholic and care about it since when somone offended my religion I reacted. Remember that feeling, when you offend those who don't share your faith.This thread has taught me that to strenghten your faith, beliefs, you have to debate/argument it with somone who is at the other end of the spectrum. I personally thank all those who argued against me, since they have helped me in my Faith instead of weakining it as some of them intended ( only a very few especially on day 1 at the begining).If I'm among them, then I'm inclined to apologise, as I think it's a disservice to you.. Still, if you don't insist on imposing your values on those who don't share them, I suppose it's all good.

Of course - one must bear in mind my sparkling Atheist credentials, but - I find it hard to credit that an omnipotent creator, is going to be too tightly bound by a rulebook he is supposed to have written.

If there IS a god, I personally think it more likely he sketches out a 'best policy' rulebook, but doesn't limit HIMSELF to it when making his choices.
I honestly don't see how anybody can push their mind to accept an omnipotent God without toppling over into agnosticism.

If God can do/think/be anything at any time with no restrictions, then there is no possible way that any human mind could ever comprehend ANYTHING about God, including what God might want/think/require from human beings. You can never have any idea what God might want from you, period, and it is laughable that you would ever be so arrogant as to presume that you have the faintest clue what God might think about anything. Therefore, since you cannot possibly ever know anything whatsoever about God, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with God at all...they're just about what YOU are choosing to believe in, which has nothing whatsoever to do with God's wishes or thoughts. Why waste your time lying to yourself and pretending that your religion is about God, when your own stated beliefs disprove that notion?

The main topic was if God Existed and altough the polls show otherwise, I would say that the believers have won this argument. Not only have they shown clear evidence of God's existence

Really? I've only been reading parts of the thread but I haven't seen anything of the sort (although Jocabia has made some excellent and thought provoking points). Would you mind pointing this 'clear evidence' out to me?

Why should have it been locked? It is clear that the non-beleivers and the beleivers both think they are right even though most of the beleivers are right. Things like these help you to express yourself you know.

In this thread we have seen opinions from a wide variety of people, atheists,agnostic, christians, Catholics, and people from other beliefs/religions. The main topic was if God Existed and altough the polls show otherwise, I would say that the believers have won this argument. Not only have they shown clear evidence of God's existence (though still not believed by most) but also debated on other Religious and Socio-Religious matters, such as God's Omniopotence, Why is there a God, Jesus, the Bible, de-moralisation of society, miracle's credibilty, Gays, Aborition and so on.

There were many Insults from both sides, altough many were in anger of an offense from the other side, I must say that there were some people who just came here to show how rude they are.

It surprises me that from the posts I read, there wasn't a Single conversion and vice-versa because some of the posts were very convincing. I would sa this is because of the many strong-willed people in their beliefs and because of not accepting what you fear is true (again may be vice-versa).

On a personal note I participated from pages 333 to some 400 mostly. In these posts that I posted I learned firstly to respect atheist people, since admitingly before I sort of detested them for their, what I percieved scientific exucuses, now I have learned are opinions ( not all of them). I also learned that much more people than I suspected don't believe in God, or if they believe they doubt most of the Church's teachings. I have also learned that people from different places have different views on how far you can go in your language. Also I have learned that in an argument you must not lose your temper or many people who might agree with you before, would not agree with you afterwards. But most importantly I have learned that I beleive in God more than anytime before in my life, and that I am truly a devout Catholic and care about it since when somone offended my religion I reacted.

This thread has taught me that to strenghten your faith, beliefs, you have to debate/argument it with somone who is at the other end of the spectrum. I personally thank all those who argued against me, since they have helped me in my Faith instead of weakining it as some of them intended ( only a very few especially on day 1 at the begining) even though I sometimes offended them, I apologise and thank them.

This post is such an improvement I can hardly believe it's the same poster. Are you sure you're not you're older brother or something? Anyway, I'm glad to see you putting a little more effort in your posts. I think you'll find a different level of response almost immediately.

As to the text of it, I leave you with Similized's responses.

Therefore, since you cannot possibly ever know anything whatsoever about God, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with God at all...they're just about what YOU are choosing to believe in, which has nothing whatsoever to do with God's wishes or thoughts.
So, exactly when did God tell you about His "wishes and thoughts"?

Omnipotence conflicts with free will. Omnipotence conflicts with omniscience. Omniscience conflicts with free will. Omnipresence conflicts with the idea of hell. Omnipotence conflicts with the idea of the devil.

I think you mean to say that these things are true to the way that some Christians view the religion. Otherwise many of these things are not impossible nor conflicting.

A: Can he make the idea of the number 7 the same as the idea of the number 4?
B: Yes.
A: But then it would be the number 4 and no longer the idea of the number 7.
B: But...
A: See how brilliant I am.

People don't realize that we limit something with our own way of thinking and then stroke ourselves by claiming that we've proven a limit of God because we defined something in a way that limits it. It proves our own limited perception and has nothing to do with the capabilities of God.

I can't remember for sure if it was in this monster of a thread - but I've had that very same argument in just the last couple of days... about 'omnipotence' not equating to 'semantic juggling'.

Can god make black, white?

Yes.

How?

Because Black and White are just names we give to certain concepts...

The same with square circles and evil acts of good, I imagine.

This whole argument is hypothetical. Even our talking about a God is hypothetical. You're beating around the bush, it stays an argument.

No, the point he makes is pertinent... you can't define the omnipotence of god by semantic arguments.

I think you mean to say that these things are true to the way that some Christians view the religion. Otherwise many of these things are not impossible nor conflicting.Yes of course. I assumed this to be understood from the context. Sorry for any confusion.

Ironically, your entire argument is based on exactly the opposite. Jocabia argues that we can't percieve God by our rules. You argue that we have to. Essentially, the entire discussion will consist of complex ways of saying "yes it is" and "no it isn't"

You are not a 'believer', are you my friend?

Not meant to be an insult or anything - It's just that I think I've seen another example of 'line-crossing' in the same debate... :)

No, the point he makes is pertinent... you can't define the omnipotence of god by semantic arguments.

That poster doesn't realize that logic is how we view the world. It has nothing to do with how the world actually works.

Time is the perfect example. The leading theory of the origin of the universe, including time, is the Big Bang. The very idea of an origin is that it did not ALWAYS exist. We can even calculate to some degree how old the universe is, and thus how long time has existed as well. The problem is that we can't even verbally discribe the very beginning because we don't have the terminolgy because we are limited beings. We are time-base, finite beings. We can't actually logically fathom omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, being 'outside' of time, being 'outside' of space, etc. These are limitations because of what we are. If a two-dimensional universe existed and they were trying to describe how we live, it would be impossibly difficult to describe becuase they don't think in terms of being three-dimensional. (yes, I simplifed that, but it makes the point).

As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang theory needs a good debunking. I'm not sure how it got quite so bunked in the first place... lack of competition, I imagine.

To me - perpetuity seems more 'logical'.... time is eternal, because I prefer a model of the universe born from the ashes of the prior incarnation of the universe. We can count time back to the origins of our incarnation of the universe, but we can't 'see' any further - thus 'time' APPEARS to start with the formation of 'space'...