NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok once the evidence is found I'll belive you.


As will I.

Because we're inquisitive animals and we like to know these things.

Not all of us do, I for one don't particulary care how old it is, it doesn't make too much of a difference where it's a billion years old or a couple of thosand.

Also where in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years old anyway? I can't find it anywhere and it's bugging me.

Not all of us do, I for one don't particulary care how old it is, it doesn't make too much of a difference where it's a billion years old or a couple of thosand.

Also where in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years old anyway? I can't find it anywhere and it's bugging me.


It doesn't say it in any verse. At some point a polish Cardinal went through and added up the ages of all the people in all the genealogies. Had the world at around 4000 years old.

How do you know how old the world is? I doubt very much you've been around 6000 years, or several million. Why does it matter how old the world is the important thing is it exists.


We can prove conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt, that the world is at least....far, far older than the bible says it is.

This means the bible is wrong regarding the creation of the world.
If the bible is supposed to be "infallible", and we have the knowledge above, logic dictates the we disregard anything it says.

Not all of us do, I for one don't particulary care how old it is, it doesn't make too much of a difference where it's a billion years old or a couple of thosand.

Also where in the bible does it say the world is 6000 years old anyway? I can't find it anywhere and it's bugging me.

As much as I hate linking to Christian apologetics, this page gives a run down of how YEC's determine that the Earth is about 6000 years old: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1757

As for not caring about the age of the planet... Well, you personally might not care but there are plenty of people that are curious about these things. This sort of curiousity is basically how we, as a species, got to where we are today.

I envy people with faith. They have the ultimate answer and the ultimate hope.

However, what is faith? It's believing something. Without any proof, with just a conviction inside of you. Faith does not care about facts or rationality.

If you have faith that the earth is really flat, then you will never care about scientific proof to the contrary. Faith itself is what matters to the people who have it, no matter what the object of their faith might be.

There is no question in my book. If you aim for a true answer to the question, then the answer is: "no, there is no god".

But faith does not care about truth. It's a lie you convince yourself of and that helps you trough life.

How comforting. I envy it's comfort.

But even that kind of lie still is a lie.

well then you must have faith in yourself and in this world? you live for the years on this earth in a short time, you think that your life is perfect and that you have everthing, but round the corners there's always something better and by the time youve got to that your dead, it's a harsh life really and you end up dead if you live for the world because the world is just objects. if there was no bible or God what would life be like right now for you ? wouldnt we all be well i dont know what would we be doing? hmmmm thats an interesting subject in itself. hehehe

It doesn't say it in any verse. At some point a polish Cardinal went through and added up the ages of all the people in all the genealogies. Had the world at around 4000 years old.

someone else said 6000

which is it?

There is no question in my book. If you aim for a true answer to the question, then the answer is: "no, there is no god".

But faith does not care about truth. It's a lie you convince yourself of and that helps you trough life.

How comforting. I envy it's comfort.

But even that kind of lie still is a lie.

I'm not sure how exactly you come to that conclusion with any degree of certianty. Theres no more proof in your favour than there is in mine.

First, let me state, I am not a religious person. My personal beliefs do not fall into any organized religion that exists. I have a personal spiritual philosophy and belief that cannot be described, or enforced, by any book. This is important so that you do not get the wrong idea about my reply to your statements.

I envy people with faith. They have the ultimate answer and the ultimate hope.

However, what is faith? It's believing something. Without any proof, with just a conviction inside of you. Faith does not care about facts or rationality.

If you have faith that the earth is really flat, then you will never care about scientific proof to the contrary. Faith itself is what matters to the people who have it, no matter what the object of their faith might be.

There is no question in my book. If you aim for a true answer to the question, then the answer is: "no, there is no god".

But faith does not care about truth. It's a lie you convince yourself of and that helps you trough life.

How comforting. I envy it's comfort.

But even that kind of lie still is a lie.

The world being flat vs round can be proven, it lies in front of us for our own eyes to see. But belief in a god, or god-like entity, or whatever, at this point in time, is impossible to prove.

a closer example to a real world scenario, is string theory... scientists have faith that their theory is correct, even though we cannot prove it. we cannot see the subparticle in any way, shape or form, we can only attempt to detect their influences on the world around us.

In the same way, religious people have faith in their god(s) because of the evidence and influence they see in the world around them.

it doesn't mean that their god doesn't exist. but at the same time it doesn't mean that their god does exist.

the dictionary definition, in a non-religious sense, of "faith", is "complete confidence". whether that confidence is misplaced or not doesn't matter.

So, if you want the same comfort of faith that confidence in a religion gives, how confident are you of your science?

I'm not sure how exactly you come to that conclusion with any degree of certianty. Theres no more proof in your favour than there is in mine.


Probably the same way you convinced yourself that God DOES exist.

As much as I hate linking to Christian apologetics, this page gives a run down of how YEC's determine that the Earth is about 6000 years old: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1757

As for not caring about the age of the planet... Well, you personally might not care but there are plenty of people that are curious about these things. This sort of curiousity is basically how we, as a species, got to where we are today.

curiosity killed the cat, and several people as well, we should just be content with being alive.

the oldest man in the bible was Mathusela he was 969 years old, there was moses and abraham and all the other men and women of the bible so you count all that up cus it tells the the age of people when they died ? then theres Jesus who lived only 33years, then you stop who have to be careful because from there till modern day new calenders have been bout out by roman emperors and kings queens anyone so you cant really exactly date it it'll have to be an estimated guess!

curiosity killed the cat, and several people as well, we should just be content with being alive.


so..learning = bad, huh?

I envy people with faith. They have the ultimate answer and the ultimate hope.

However, what is faith? It's believing something. Without any proof, with just a conviction inside of you. Faith does not care about facts or rationality.

If you have faith that the earth is really flat, then you will never care about scientific proof to the contrary. Faith itself is what matters to the people who have it, no matter what the object of their faith might be.

There is no question in my book. If you aim for a true answer to the question, then the answer is: "no, there is no god".

But faith does not care about truth. It's a lie you convince yourself of and that helps you trough life.

How comforting. I envy it's comfort.

But even that kind of lie still is a lie.

but it COULD be true, maybe

so..learning = bad, huh?

Exactly!

someone else said 6000

which is it?

Oh no. It may have been aroung 6000 years ago. It was created in 4000bc.

curiosity killed the cat, and several people as well, we should just be content with being alive.


Maybe you're content with being alive, but noone else is.

hehehe an the votes well to be honest most people might just vote No, because lets face it people hate God. even if you dont believe Him you still hate Him cus you want to get rid of that Power and Authority just as the The Pharisee's wanted because they were happy with there power and authority over Judea amd all the Jews, like Islam, the Caliphite got worried about the spreading influence of Christianity through there land so basically created there own Religion based of the Jewish doctrine but with there own Arabic Names and Typicals. Basically they got Mohammed who was a supposed wealthy MAN, and told him that if you dont quell this Christianity we'll behead you and take all your possesions.

You dont have to Believe that thou it's upto you if you want to understand more and more. it's not like i know everything lol im very lowely educated well im alright :)

you all should go check out Kent Hovind aka Dr. Dino, he's really awesome...smart guy...
God Bless

What the hell? Firstly, Hovind isn't a doctor. Secondly, he's a liar and a fraud who even YECs regard as an idiot.

Here's a challenge I've offered on other forums:

The following is an article from DrDino.com (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=60):

The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. From the chart, it is "obvious" that we all started off as penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly evolved into fruit flies. After many "millions of years" we turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on, until we reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes. One of our ancestors must have been one of the identical triplets—opossums, redwood trees, and kidney beans—with 22 chromosomes each.

If we are allowed to "continue evolving" we may someday be tobacco plants and maybe we may even become carp with 100, or maybe even the ultimate life form, a fern with 480 chromosomes! Don’t you believe it! God made this world and all life forms, as recorded in the Bible.

1.) In this article, how many sentences do NOT contain an outright lie?

2.) In this article, how many sentences contain NEITHER an outright lie NOR an unsupported assertion?

Answers in white:
1.) 2 (the last two sentences)
2.) 1 (the penultimate sentence is an imperative and so cannot be classed a lie or an assertion)

How can anyone in their right mind take this liar seriously?

Probably the same way you convinced yourself that God DOES exist.

Hence calling it a lie is a little far fetched.

Hence calling it a lie is a little far fetched.


Eh, he said it, not me.

I wouldnt have used that term.

Omniscient (knows all), omnipotent (unlimited power) and all loving.

This is what many religions claim of their god but none have managed to convince me as to how this could be true considering the state of the world. Maybe two out of the three, but not all of them.

My belief is that I should live my life treating others as I would like to be treated. This way everyone is happy, including myself, because everyone treats each other well.

Now if there happens to be a god, then when i die I believe that the fact I'll have lived a good life should count for me more than a lack of belief would count against me.

Just my two cents

your risking alot there because if there is a Heaven and you say you've been good and all that wont get you into heaven? im not going to go through a whole subject on that but there's the Bible to sort that out for you. have you looked at Christianity or have you looked at the Church for your answer or looked at answer told to you through other people or gone to some Sect? lol

your risking alot there because if there is a Heaven and you say you've been good and all that wont get you into heaven? im not going to go through a whole subject on that but there's the Bible to sort that out for you. have you looked at Christianity or have you looked at the Church for your answer or looked at answer told to you through other people or gone to some Sect? lol

the Quran has a passage that states that one does not have to be Jewish, Christian or Muslim to get into Heaven, the only requirement is that you live a life on the path of God. In otherwords, live a good, honest, healthy, caring, and gentle life.

the Quran has a passage that states that one does not have to be Jewish, Christian or Muslim to get into Heaven, the only requirement is that you live a life on the path of God. In otherwords, live a good, honest, healthy, caring, and gentle life.


Then it looks like theres gonna be a whole lot of us Atheists in Heaven to run it in the noses of the Bible-Thumpers.

Whoohoo!

Score one for Allah!

Then it looks like theres gonna be a whole lot of us Atheists in Heaven to run it in the noses of the Bible-Thumpers.

Whoohoo!

Score one for Allah!

And yet the Son of God states that no one gets to heaven except through him.

*takes a point away from Allah*

Then it looks like theres gonna be a whole lot of us Atheists in Heaven to run it in the noses of the Bible-Thumpers.

Whoohoo!

Score one for Allah!

And as far as I know Judaism states that anyone who follows the seven Noachide laws gets into heaven too.

And yet the Son of God states that no one gets to heaven except through him.

Like the Green Knight you mean? Bring it!

And yet the Son of God states that no one gets to heaven except through him.

*takes a point away from Allah*

Does that mean I have to duel with him? Because if that's so, then there are rules. He called the challenge, so I have to pick the weapons. I choose M-16's at Dawn. His place or mine, whichever is easiest.

Does that mean I have to duel with him? Because if that's so, then there are rules. He called the challenge, so I have to pick the weapons. I choose M-16's at Dawn. His place or mine, whichever is easiest.

No duels sorry.

This is the most intense poll on the internet.

Here are all the answers you need:

The official god FAQ:
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

john 1:1 "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word in this verse refers to Jesus

I encourage you to find a Gideons bible or something and read just John chapter 1...its really the best thing for you...I can't really say much that'll stack up to what just reading the actual book will do for ya'

Rather depends on your interpretation. If you understand Jesus to be logos (the word) made flesh, then 'Jesus' must be different from JUST 'the word'.

the people above using the something from nothing apologetics arguement...or trying lol are refering to the Big Bang not evolution itself. if you go really to the hardcore hardcore big bang theorists they say that in the beginning there was all the unniverse compacted into a speck of dust that was infinitely small. smaller than this period . and one day it exploded and poof the unniverse...this alone defies a couple basic laws of physics...like matter being created or destroyed...and the theorem of entropy...you know that matter is inevitably going to become disorganized...not organized...and if you believe the Big Bang theory it seems that the unniverse is coming into order...not falling out of it...uhm I like to just go back and back and say where'd that come from when I debate...so where did the very first matter come from (that alone is an absurd statement since all the matter in the unniverse has...always been there...so there is no "first") and if you spend some time thinking it through you really cannot have infinite time and if you can't have infinite time at some point you have to have a beginning of matter...and nothing but God can explain the origination of matter...I dunno I'm not the greatest organizer of thoughts but you know who is? Lee Strobel...and Kent Hovind, I HIGHLY recommend you check out all of there stuff...it might do you some good...and of course read a Bible...best book in the world you know? I really like it...just read it...anywhere...pick it up and read it...amazing the things it does...I'll be praying for all ya' atheists lol

It's an interesting take on it - but that isn't definitive of Big Bang theories.

Also - I have to point out the logic flaw - disobeying physical laws doesn't matter, until there IS something.

Well, this thread has turned into quite the brain-fest, so if you want to box with some intellectuals, stick around, but the going gets a bit thick now and then.

But if you bring up evolution again, something will be thrown at you -- a dinner roll or something.

:D That struck my sick sense of humour just right...

Does anyone else see a disparity between this theory and the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omnicogniscient God? Or are we back on the idea of "can God make a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift?"?

I never claimed God was omnipotent or omnipresent. Religions might, buit I'm not religious, and to me it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that a good God would let innocent babies die, seeing as there would be no point them being born in the first place. Incidentally, omnipotent is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "having unlimited or very great power". I reckon God has amazing powers, but not unlimited.

And think about it for a minute any religious people reading this: if God has unlimited power, and can be everywhere at once, why would God have to send Jesus or mohammed to earth to tell people about God and to do good things... couldn't God have done that his self or herself? And what would be the point of Angels?

Forget religious arguments and my theories actually make sense. Could be way off the mark, but at least they make sense.

I looked up omnicogniscient, the word doesn't appear to exist.

my favorite apologetics arguement of all time though is the Conciousness...it just speaks for itself...how...on EARTH...are we concious...creative...cognitive...how do we have personalities? how do we have emotions? how are we not survival of the fittest...eat sleep reproduce organisms...how are we so complex if not for being made in the image of an intelligent designer...

Personality is memory, interpreted. Creativity is curiosity, interpreted. Consciousness is what WE call the processes that bounce around our synapses, and move our meat... but for all we know, consciousness is ALSO just memory, interpreted through a complex machine.

All could be argued as survival characteristics.

ok, to let you know I am trying to not support either side as I see plus's on both sides. But I've always thought that if Christians are right then the Atheists will most likely end up in hell, but if the Atheists are right they both end up dead for all eternity. The Atheists never win, either way they lose, whereas the Christians have a small chance of ending up in heaven. So surely it'd be best to be a Christian, just in case. I mean eternal bliss sounds so much better than plain old death.

And if the Muslims are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Hindus are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Baptists are right, then all the OTHER Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?


Or - here's a thought... what if there IS an afterlife... but being religious exempts you from it? Then ONLY the Atheists get in, right?

Jesus Christ is going to be returning soon. Repent your sins and accept him as your savior so you'll be able to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Ok once the evidence is found I'll belive you.

You realise, that's the same argument the Atheists are making...?

Jesus Christ is going to be returning soon. Repent your sins and accept him as your savior so you'll be able to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Thanks, but no thanks.

:(

hehehe an the votes well to be honest most people might just vote No, because lets face it people hate God. even if you dont believe Him you still hate Him ...

Up against some pretty stiff competition, this may be the most illogical thing you've said.

'Hate' is a strong, passionate emotion. The Atheist is indifferent to 'god', by virtue of believing him/her/it/them to be non-existent.

Thus, the Atheist does not 'hate god'.

:(

:fluffle:

Turn that frown upside down, Corny!

Observe:

:)

And yet the Son of God states that no one gets to heaven except through him.

*takes a point away from Allah*

That's the problem with unverifiable claims... your argument is no better than that of the Koran... so you don't get to 'disprove' their claims JUST by your argument existing.

Jesus Christ is going to be returning soon. Repent your sins and accept him as your savior so you'll be able to see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Actually, He came back in 1976 - we are ALL 'left behind', now.

i think that you are all missing one point here. every religon was created in order to make people live in better conditions, to make them do good to their environment, to make them understand how wonderful it feels to offer a helping hand even to strangers.

i think that God was only a symbol of power to change people in the better way. taking into consideration the time periods and places that the holly books came to earth, you can see that people NEEDED someone a lot powerful than themselves, in order to change. i dont believe that God himself/herself wrote Koran or the Bible. i believe that the prophets were people of quality that could foresee what would become of earth if people didnt change, that were wiser than a simple humanbeing can grasp. i'm not insulting them. everyone should accept the fact that they were only human (as the Koran clearly states).

anyway, if we need him/her to be good, caring, helpful, ect.; then "yes!", i do believe in God.

Actually, He came back in 1976 - we are ALL 'left behind', now.

If he came back already then we would be in the 1000 year reign of our Lord Savior Jesus and I know that we are not.

And if the Muslims are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Hindus are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Baptists are right, then all the OTHER Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?


Or - here's a thought... what if there IS an afterlife... but being religious exempts you from it? Then ONLY the Atheists get in, right?
Or that there is a God and since everyone screwed up the message, no one gets in. :eek:

And if the Muslims are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Hindus are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Baptists are right, then all the OTHER Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?


Or - here's a thought... what if there IS an afterlife... but being religious exempts you from it? Then ONLY the Atheists get in, right?

IMHO this is why we shouldn't preach our opinion to others. I agree that faith is very important in many people's lives, and can have a positive influence on the people who practice it, however generally it becomes corrupted when it tries to influence people without giving them a chance to find what they believe first. Another example being when polticians try to use faith in politics--politics is inherently corrupt so therefore it corrupts the faith once it becomes involved in politics.

Do not get left behind. Come to the Lord.

Do not get left behind. Come to the Lord.

Why are you so desperate to 'save' people? Is Heaven some sort of Private Club, and you get into the Platinum Room by saving so many souls? 10 Souls for Bronze, 50 for Silver, 100 for Gold? That sort of thing?

Why are you so desperate to 'save' people? Is Heaven some sort of Private Club, and you get into the Platinum Room by saving so many souls? 10 Souls for Bronze, 50 for Silver, 100 for Gold? That sort of thing?

By God, I think you're onto something! :p

By God, I think you're onto something! :p

Come into Heaven! All for the low, low price of 250 Souls! Our operators are standing by to take your orders...

Come into Heaven! All for the low, low price of 250 Souls! Our operators are standing by to take your orders...

Remember kids; Jewish souls are worth FIVE Gentile souls!

Do not get left behind. Come to the Lord.

They don't have sexual harassment laws in Heaven?

Remember kids; Jewish souls are worth FIVE Gentile souls!

But no Muslims!

Remember kids; Jewish souls are worth FIVE Gentile souls!
and if you save people on Dec 25th, you get double points! ;)

They don't have sexual harassment laws in Heaven?
why do you ask?

If he came back already then we would be in the 1000 year reign of our Lord Savior Jesus and I know that we are not.

How would you 'know'?

Also - what if we are not at 'millenium', yet?

What if those who are going to be taken up, HAVE been, and we are still seeing the wars and plagues promised in Revelation?

(You could try to use the Daniel prophecy to set the time limit for the plagues and wars, but that prophecy is ALREADY being used 'out of context' to provide the number of 'weeks'... there is no reason why each 'day' of that last week shouldn't be as much as 1000 years.)

Or that there is a God and since everyone screwed up the message, no one gets in. :eek:

Also a possibility.

Just one of the reasons why Pascal fails to score.

IMHO this is why we shouldn't preach our opinion to others. I agree that faith is very important in many people's lives, and can have a positive influence on the people who practice it, however generally it becomes corrupted when it tries to influence people without giving them a chance to find what they believe first. Another example being when polticians try to use faith in politics--politics is inherently corrupt so therefore it corrupts the faith once it becomes involved in politics.

Religious faith requires some kind of agreement to be reached between the believer and the believed - whether or not the 'believed' figure is literal.

As such - it is actually something of a nonsense to preach, in the way that many do - because you cannot 'persuade' or 'coerce' someone to believe... the best you could get is lip-service.

The only way to 'bring a soul to Christ' (or whatever, for whichever religion) is to lay out what you know, and allow the other person to make their personal connection, or not.

Those that preach stick or carrot, damnation, or heavenly reward, might as well save their breath.

Jesus Christ is going to be returning soon. Repent your sins and accept him as your savior so you'll be able to see the Kingdom of Heaven.
Screw that. When JC comes back, I'm gonna kill him, rape him, and eat his costume.

All praise the Juggernaut bitches! Why worship some hippy with long hair when you can worship a guy with a helmet like that? Have you ever seen how tight his costume is?

Also a possibility.

Just one of the reasons why Pascal fails to score.
Pascal failed to score, but Jesus Saves.


so who would he pass to? ;)

and if you save people on Dec 25th, you get double points! ;)

Accept Christ and get a free Playstation 2!!! (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0104/ps2.html)

Pascal failed to score, but Jesus Saves.


so who would he pass to? ;)

Well, Jesus would obviously pass to Rio Ferdinand, or all the way to Becks, since everyone knows Jesus is English.

Or if you meant Pascal... I don't think they'd let him have the ball... he's got that bad rep, and the French team don't need a weak link in the box.

okay then, how did nothing explode? no answer.....

EDIT: just realised I made an error that's why people are confused, I meant big bang theorists not evoloutionists, but they're effectivly the same thing anyway. I was using it as a comparision, ask a big bang theorsits how the universe was created and they'll say 'the big bang' ask them what was before that, they generally shut up but some say 'first there was nothing, and then it exploded' it makes me laugh every time
Flawless Cowboy isn't the only person who could get hit with a bun. If this is going to degenerate into one of those moronic when-did-it-all-begin arguments, I will be very put out.

ok, to let you know I am trying to not support either side as I see plus's on both sides. But I've always thought that if Christians are right then the Atheists will most likely end up in hell, but if the Atheists are right they both end up dead for all eternity. The Atheists never win, either way they lose, whereas the Christians have a small chance of ending up in heaven. So surely it'd be best to be a Christian, just in case. I mean eternal bliss sounds so much better than plain old death.
Okay, for the 800th time -- I'm not an atheist. That means I don't give a rat's ass about a religious person's opinion of whether atheists or wrong or not. And for the 700th time, this is not -- repeat: NOT -- a theist versus atheist argument. Okay? Can we get on the same page now?

IMHO this is why we shouldn't preach our opinion to others. I agree that faith is very important in many people's lives, and can have a positive influence on the people who practice it, however generally it becomes corrupted when it tries to influence people without giving them a chance to find what they believe first. Another example being when polticians try to use faith in politics--politics is inherently corrupt so therefore it corrupts the faith once it becomes involved in politics.
Hear, hear! :)

Why are you so desperate to 'save' people? Is Heaven some sort of Private Club, and you get into the Platinum Room by saving so many souls? 10 Souls for Bronze, 50 for Silver, 100 for Gold? That sort of thing?
That's how Pat Robertson's 700 Club does it -- only for "souls," read "dollars."

why do you ask?

He did say come on to the lord.....

If thats truly the conclusion you reached, I suggest you backtrack again.
Fossil evidence pretty much proves itself.
If you want to believe in Creation, thats great, but to ignore the truth, makes you a bit of a fool, now doesnt it?

But what is the truth?

And if the Muslims are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Hindus are right? Then the Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?

And, if the Baptists are right, then all the OTHER Christians are in the same boat as the Atheists... No?


Or - here's a thought... what if there IS an afterlife... but being religious exempts you from it? Then ONLY the Atheists get in, right?

What he said

Faith in God - yes.
Faith in religion (any religion) - no.

Flawless Cowboy isn't the only person who could get hit with a bun. If this is going to degenerate into one of those moronic when-did-it-all-begin arguments, I will be very put out.

buns are tasty, throw them at me!

God is above us, To even ask Why is human. To demand him to answer to us is stupid and blasphimus. It is saying that we are smarter then God. Also we all die, Perhapes her mission in life was to have you question your faith. Do not give up on the Lord.

He did say come on to the lord.....
but we're not in Heaven. so whether or not there is sexual harrasement in Heaven is not the question.... for it's happening on Earth.

and I think God and Jesus has Diplomatic Immunity.

I envy people with faith. They have the ultimate answer and the ultimate hope.

However, what is faith? It's believing something. Without any proof, with just a conviction inside of you. Faith does not care about facts or rationality.

If you have faith that the earth is really flat, then you will never care about scientific proof to the contrary.
I'm sorry, that's just bullship. Do you have no faith that you don't know what it is?

Faith itself is what matters to the people who have it, no matter what the object of their faith might be.

There is no question in my book. If you aim for a true answer to the question, then the answer is: "no, there is no god".

But faith does not care about truth. It's a lie you convince yourself of and that helps you trough life.

How comforting. I envy it's comfort.

But even that kind of lie still is a lie.
I have faith that you will someday understand faith.

I never claimed God was omnipotent or omnipresent. Religions might, buit I'm not religious, and to me it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that a good God would let innocent babies die, seeing as there would be no point them being born in the first place. Incidentally, omnipotent is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as "having unlimited or very great power". I reckon God has amazing powers, but not unlimited.

And think about it for a minute any religious people reading this: if God has unlimited power, and can be everywhere at once, why would God have to send Jesus or mohammed to earth to tell people about God and to do good things... couldn't God have done that his self or herself? And what would be the point of Angels?

Forget religious arguments and my theories actually make sense. Could be way off the mark, but at least they make sense.
God is spirit. His "unlimited power" is spiritual. Spirits are power that has no external power exerted on them. Spirit is immaterial. We are spirit, god is the all-spirit. As spirit is power, the all-spirit is all-power. We are physical, too, god is not, therefore we need to speak about him as he has no vocal cords. All clear now? (Certainly transparent.)

What theories?

I looked up omnicogniscient, the word doesn't appear to exist.
I'm not surprised. Cogniscient isn't a word, either.

death to god!:mp5:

How would you 'know'?

Also - what if we are not at 'millenium', yet?

What if those who are going to be taken up, HAVE been, and we are still seeing the wars and plagues promised in Revelation?

(You could try to use the Daniel prophecy to set the time limit for the plagues and wars, but that prophecy is ALREADY being used 'out of context' to provide the number of 'weeks'... there is no reason why each 'day' of that last week shouldn't be as much as 1000 years.)

So who is the anti-christ for he will reign over the whole earth till the Glorious Reappearing of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

Screw that. When JC comes back, I'm gonna kill him, rape him, and eat his costume.

Umm yea. :rolleyes: Good luck. I bet ya odds you would not survive the attempt.

okay then, how did nothing explode? no answer.....

EDIT: just realised I made an error that's why people are confused, I meant big bang theorists not evoloutionists, but they're effectivly the same thing anyway. I was using it as a comparision, ask a big bang theorsits how the universe was created and they'll say 'the big bang' ask them what was before that, they generally shut up but some say 'first there was nothing, and then it exploded' it makes me laugh every time
That there is no answer to the question is not the same thing as being quiet about the issue. They will gladly tell you that there is no answer, and then launch into the reasons why.

And speaking of reasons, there is no reason to assume that all people who believe in evolution (a theory of biology) support the Big Bang Theory (a theory of cosmology), or visa-versa.

So who is the anti-christ for he will reign over the whole earth till the Glorious Reappearing of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
George W. Bush?

George W. Bush?

The Space Pope?

George W. Bush?

And what is GWB doing to unite the world? Why hasn't he make a motion to move the UN to Babylon?

Accept Christ and get a free Playstation 2!!! (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0104/ps2.html)

A clear sign that the devil himself has subverted the baptists!!!

Nintendo is great and Miyamoto-san is their prophet.

And what is GWB doing to unite the world? Why hasn't he make a motion to move the UN to Babylon?
He is working to unite the world under good American family values, like freedom, capitalism, internal-combustion engines, and sugar.

Is moving the UN headquarters a sign of your anti-Christ? That's quite the prophets, who foretold the UN.

He is working to unite the world under good American family values, like freedom, capitalism, internal-combustion engines, and sugar.

Is moving the UN headquarters a sign of your anti-Christ? That's quite the prophets, who foretold the UN.

The capitol of the planet is going to be Babylon which will be destroyed again by God during the end of the world.

He is working to unite the world under good American family values, like freedom, capitalism, internal-combustion engines, and sugar.

Is moving the UN headquarters a sign of your anti-Christ? That's quite the prophets, who foretold the UN.

A bit unrelated, but what does your sig actually mean?

Faith is believing that witch cannot exist.

Which witch? Witches in general? Why single out witches?

A bit unrelated, but what does your sig actually mean?

Faith is believing that witch cannot exist.

Which witch? Witches in general? Why single out witches?
It's a pun. The original quote was, "Faith is believing that which cannot exist."

I disagreed, but the pun works for me.

The capitol of the planet is going to be Babylon which will be destroyed again by God during the end of the world.
And what does the UN have to do with the capitol of the planet?

I blame the Gay marriage threads on the influx of God-peoples. Just cuz I need a scapegoat, and everyone's on Bush.

The capitol of the planet is going to be Babylon which will be destroyed again by God during the end of the world.
You mean Babylon, New York? It's a suburb of New York City, on Long Island. Not much of a move, really... What if the UN just rented time shares out there? Would that signal The End?

A bit unrelated, but what does your sig actually mean?

Faith is believing that witch cannot exist.

Which witch? Witches in general? Why single out witches?
i have been meaning to mention how much i like this sig but havent had an opportunity to do so.

it gets me every time. i immediately think...thats not spelled right... then i realize that it makes excellent sense and i appreciate it all over again.

i must have a very simple mind...

Is there a God? I have no idea. I have seen no evidence to support his/her/their existence/non-existence. But, given the state of the world today, I suspect that, If he/she/they did exist, they really don't give a damn.

So who is the anti-christ for he will reign over the whole earth till the Glorious Reappearing of our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

"The Anti-Christ" described in the Bible is not a single person, it describes all those people who's views and philosophies are contradictory to the teaching of Christ.

Sadly, almost all "Christians" don't bother to read and understand the Bible, they go to Church and get preached at, and tell each other how things are, without ever seeing the Word themselves.

so glad I'm not Christian, I like reading :)

But what is the truth?


The simple truth is that nearly every specie of critter on the planet is, and has been evolving since life began on the planet.

I dont understand Christian Whackjobs who try to deny common sense, and simple truth, becuase it condradicts what some innacurate, dusty old tome said thousands of years ago.

Why so paranoid about Evolution?

How is clearer insight as to how evolution going to injure your faith?

Is it that deep inside, you know its all a sham, and you fiercely react to the slightest question to your faith?

It would seem to me as though thats a pretty weak faith, if so.

People who lived 2000 years ago, where scientifically retarded.
We've gained much knowledge (despite the Church's actions to prevent learning), and we know much about how the universe works.

If such knowledge makes any christian afraid, then I say to them, "your faith is weak, and you should let go of primitive ignorance."

You wanna believe in God?
Thats great.

God gave you a brain, and the ability to learn......use it.

And what does the UN have to do with the capitol of the planet?

Well the UN is the world Governing body though they are not a world legislature.

You mean Babylon, New York? It's a suburb of New York City, on Long Island. Not much of a move, really... What if the UN just rented time shares out there? Would that signal The End?

I'm talking about the Babylon in Iraq. :rolleyes:

"The Anti-Christ" described in the Bible is not a single person, it describes all those people who's views and philosophies are contradictory to the teaching of Christ.

Care to back that up though that is one theory.

Sadly, almost all "Christians" don't bother to read and understand the Bible,

Now this I agree with. Luckily, I'm doing what I can to actually read and study it.

they go to Church and get preached at, and tell each other how things are, without ever seeing the Word themselves.

Another sorry truth unfortunately :(

so glad I'm not Christian, I like reading :)

I like reading too. I have many science Fiction and History books. So what does your last statement have to do with all of this? Nothing.

Care to back that up though that is one theory.

The Antichrists of the Letters of John:

He is mentioned 5 times: Twice in 1Jn.2:18, once in 1Jn.2:22, 4:3, and 2Jn.7.

As you can read in the quotations below they have the following characteristics:

1- They are many (1Jn.:2:18-19).

2- They were already present in the times of John... "even now many antichrists have come" (1Jn.2:18), "you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world" (1Jn.4:3)... and the time of John, after Christ, is called "the last hour" (1Jn.2:18).
These Antichrists are then already present today!... in our lives!... they will try to make us deny Christ, to provoke the Abomination of Desolation in our lives: To steel from us the Eternal Sacrifice, the Altar, the Priests, which will be the first thing the Antichrist of the End of Time will do. See The Time of Coming of the Antichrist of the End of the Age.

3- He denies that Jesus is the Christ, he denies the Father and the Son, he does not acknowledge Jesus Christ has come in the flesh from God (1Jn.2:22, 4:2-3, 2Jn.7)

4- They came out from us, from the Christian Community!. (1Jn.2:19).

5- He is a liar, a deceiver, the antichrist (1Jn.2:22, 2Jn.7).

These are the full quotations from the Bible:

1John.2:18-19: "18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us".

1John:2:22: "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son".

1John.4:3: "2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world".

2 John 7: "7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist".

I like reading too. I have many science Fiction and History books. So what does your last statement have to do with all of this? Nothing.
no, nothing really, just was making fun of the fact that so few Christians actually read the Bible

2 John 7: "7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist".

...and anyone who disagrees is a commie pinko!

I thought the "Anti-Christ" was Nero Claudius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus?

unfortunatly, not eveyone has our self control. ;)

Oh and by 'Our', I mean anyone who really doesn't need the Law or Religion or any fear of punnishment to do the right thing. :D
Well, here's an important part of debate, then:

I think we're all pretty much agreed that there are people in the world who seem to require some form of Law to keep them from hurting others. Now the question becomes, do the ends justify the means? Even if some of us believe that religion is not a good thing by itself, should we accept the use of religion to keep certain people in line?

Personally, I think we'd be vastly better off to use some other system, particularly if we are talking about the kind of person who feels inclined to hurt others. Trying to use superstition and myth to keep that kind of person under control is NOT A GOOD PLAN, in my opinion. Unless they are extremely stupid, they will eventually learn that you can find a religion that will justify whatever you like, and they'll probably just end up gravitating to whichever concept of God will allow them the freedom to act on their harmful impulses.

I'm talking about the Babylon in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Why?

Why would it be that one? Babylon is usually used in the scripture as metaphor.

By that reckoning - the US is looking pretty promising as Babylon at the moment... although I can't imagine Bush as 'antichrist', because antichrist is reckoned to be popular...

Why?

Why would it be that one? Babylon is usually used in the scripture as metaphor.

By that reckoning - the US is looking pretty promising as Babylon at the moment... although I can't imagine Bush as 'antichrist', because antichrist is reckoned to be popular...

Shhh... ignore these things, duh. And the Anti-Christ isn't described by Paul as being already on earth during Paul's life and as people who reject the teachings of Christ, ignore that too.

Shhh... ignore these things, duh. And the Anti-Christ isn't described by Paul as being already on earth during Paul's life and as people who reject the teachings of Christ, ignore that too.

Oh, YOU, and your 'reading the bible'....

I thought the "Anti-Christ" was Nero Claudius Cæsar Augustus Germanicus?
Who said that he had to be the only one? What's to prevent the anti-Christ from assuming a number of different forms? Maybe that's the real secret of "666" - that's how many anti-Christs there are.

Or there could be no anti-Christs at all, or an infinite number. Perhaps we are all, collectively, the anti-Christ, or perhaps we are all individually anti-Christs. There are so many possibilities that nobody ever bothers to consider.

Who said that he had to be the only one? What's to prevent the anti-Christ from assuming a number of different forms? Maybe that's the real secret of "666" - that's how many anti-Christs there are.

Or there could be no anti-Christs at all, or an infinite number. Perhaps we are all, collectively, the anti-Christ, or perhaps we are all individually anti-Christs. There are so many possibilities that nobody ever bothers to consider.

Wasn't the number in the earlier texts actually 616 and not 666?

Well the UN is the world Governing body though they are not a world legislature.
Hardly. The role of the UN is not to govern the world. Their role is (I quote from their website) "the promotion of peace and security, development and human rights around the world". They are more like a committee than a government.

Wasn't the number in the earlier texts actually 616 and not 666?
Actually, there's no number at all attributed... the "Mark of the Beast" is not described in the latin texts. It's mentioned of course, but it's not given any description on appearance

I'm talking about the Babylon in Iraq. :rolleyes:
There is no Babylon in Iraq, beyond the archeological remains. But the Babylon on Long Island is a fairly decent town, if you like the beach -- and car dealerships.

Well, here's an important part of debate, then:

I think we're all pretty much agreed that there are people in the world who seem to require some form of Law to keep them from hurting others. Now the question becomes, do the ends justify the means? Even if some of us believe that religion is not a good thing by itself, should we accept the use of religion to keep certain people in line?

Personally, I think we'd be vastly better off to use some other system, particularly if we are talking about the kind of person who feels inclined to hurt others. Trying to use superstition and myth to keep that kind of person under control is NOT A GOOD PLAN, in my opinion. Unless they are extremely stupid, they will eventually learn that you can find a religion that will justify whatever you like, and they'll probably just end up gravitating to whichever concept of God will allow them the freedom to act on their harmful impulses.
I think that using religion to keep certain people in line or to promote social order is a dangerous misuse of religion. I personally believe that the proper job of religion is to be an expression of personal spiritual experiences and to find meaning in those experiences. History shows that, when religion becomes the vehicle of social order and control, it becomes politically corrupt. I know of no instance in the history of organized religion in which this has not happened. History also shows how easy it is for religion to shift from controlling violent impulses to exploiting them in such things holy wars, witch crazes, inquisitions, etc.

Religion does not deal with worldly, mundane matters. When we try to use it to manage such things, we are using it wrong.

I believe in God....but I don't believe he controls everything. I think theres input and guidance. I also believe in everything happens for a reason even if we don't know what it is, but I also know that I may be wrong but I believe I am right because I need to believe in God. Above all though I believe that people should be good and kind and compassionate and care about people, not because they fear what is going to happen but because it is the right thing to do.

it's the same with UFO. And good companies. And good wives. And good policemen. And good politicians. And low tax rate.



:headbang:

God does things for a reason, who are we to question Him, have faith and everything with work out. Live by that.

God exists. I invite anybody to try to disprove the idea that God exists. And don't answer me by asking me to prove that God exists.

Based on the definition of a higher being, of any sort, such a being would be free of the constraints of any law of the earthly plane. Essentially, any defintion of God that makes God a god would require Him/Her to be free of earthly constraints. Otherwise, if such constraints were applicable, then God would not truly be a god. Thus, proving that a god exists is not feasible, because there are no premises discovered through human origin that would be binding for any god. The only way to prove that a god exists is through divine means, means that would have had to come from a god in the first place.

On the other hand, disproving god is a monumental, but feasible task, should it be true. If no god exists, then by defintion, there would be no higher law, no higher constratints than those found on this earth. If God is not there, then humanity is its own epitomy, and the constraints that are upon us are the highest that exist.

No known scientific equation can hold itself to be accurate at the threshold of time. A singularity exists in the most complex of space-time equations that pronounces itself at the extrem of the beginning of time, and will probably do so if ever an equation can be developed to go to the end of time.

On another note, does anybody really believe that this planet was populated by chance. The possibility that each of us is here only due to a number of interacting variables is so astronomically small that there is no reason on earthly limits as to why each of us exists. Do not tell me that this is inevitable. It is not. It is entirely possible that none of what we know today could have ever existed, or would have ever existed. Anybody that believes he or she is here simply because of chance should be a professional gambler, as they have already beaten the odds of not existing in the first place. Until you do become such a professional gambler, you cannot truly say that there is no God.

God exists. I invite anybody to try to disprove the idea that God exists. And don't answer me by asking me to prove that God exists.
Why should we try to either prove or disprove such a thing?

Based on the definition of a higher being, of any sort, such a being would be free of the constraints of any law of the earthly plane. Essentially, any defintion of God that makes God a god would require Him/Her to be free of earthly constraints. Otherwise, if such constraints were applicable, then God would not truly be a god. Thus, proving that a god exists is not feasible, because there are no premises discovered through human origin that would be binding for any god. The only way to prove that a god exists is through divine means, means that would have had to come from a god in the first place.

On the other hand, disproving god is a monumental, but feasible task, should it be true. If no god exists, then by defintion, there would be no higher law, no higher constratints than those found on this earth. If God is not there, then humanity is its own epitomy, and the constraints that are upon us are the highest that exist.
Neither of those propositions is provable.

You admit that it is impossible to prove that god exists because the criteria are not perceivable, i.e. they are divine. Yet you base your assumption of the provability of the non-existence of god upon those very same non-perceivable criteria. If we cannot perceive that which is above the higher laws (I presume you mean the physical laws of the universe), then how can we perceive the limits of the higher law, i.e. how can we know it is the highest? Are you suggesting that we can see the limits of the higher law, but we can only perceive a void above that? Well, then, how would that negate the arguments of atheists that there is nothing above the higher law, if they can point to a big fat nothing above the higher law?

The fact is, nobody knows the limits of the laws of the universe, and that is why no one can say definitively that there is or is not anything above those laws. Therefore, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god because it is impossible to know that we are perceiving the limit of the higher law.

No known scientific equation can hold itself to be accurate at the threshold of time. A singularity exists in the most complex of space-time equations that pronounces itself at the extrem of the beginning of time, and will probably do so if ever an equation can be developed to go to the end of time.
This doesn't make sense. I'm not sure if it's because it's irrelevant.

On another note, does anybody really believe that this planet was populated by chance. The possibility that each of us is here only due to a number of interacting variables is so astronomically small that there is no reason on earthly limits as to why each of us exists. Do not tell me that this is inevitable. It is not. It is entirely possible that none of what we know today could have ever existed, or would have ever existed. Anybody that believes he or she is here simply because of chance should be a professional gambler, as they have already beaten the odds of not existing in the first place. Until you do become such a professional gambler, you cannot truly say that there is no God.
Stuff and nonsense. You cannot perceive either the beginning or the end of existence -- or even of your own consciousness -- so everything you are saying about origins of life and the order of the universe is nothing more than speculation -- exactly the same thing you would apparently criticize secularists for. If they are gambling that there is no god, then you are gambling that there is one. Neither of you knows for certain.

The possibility that each of us is here only due to a number of interacting variables is so astronomically small that there is no reason on earthly limits as to why each of us exists.

and the visible universe is so astronimically large, that it's more than likely that we're not the only ones out here. In fact, there's rather heavy debate going on right now over the Red Rain phenomenom wherein organic red cells, which exhibit life processes including reproduction, but contain no DNA, have been found after a meteor impact.

I don't believe in god. I never felt that I need to believe in her/him.

Being religious is a very good thing. If your life sucks, you have a basis. Something which you believe in, which builds you ab, helps you.

But I trust in myself and the people around me. I don't need a "higher force" to have a cheerfull live. But I respect people, who are religious.

God exists. I invite anybody to try to disprove the idea that God exists. And don't answer me by asking me to prove that God exists.
I invite you to disprove that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Can't? Please give all your worldly possessions to the Church of the Unicorn or it will send you to hell when you die. :rolleyes:

You see, it is not possible to prove a negative, and your statement is therefore a fallicious shift of the burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29). Just because we cannot absolutely disprove the hypothesis that God exists does not mean that there is any evidence to suggest that he does, or that we should accept that possibility as a rational idea.

Isn't it amazing that a poll with 1973 voters would finish with the results within 5 of eachother.. That's pretty crazy.

I think that using religion to keep certain people in line or to promote social order is a dangerous misuse of religion.

An interesting stance, considering that we have ample evidence to suggest that organized religion exists precisely for that purpose.


I personally believe that the proper job of religion is to be an expression of personal spiritual experiences and to find meaning in those experiences.

I don't think religion has any "proper job." I think religion is an expression of people's desire to feel connected to their own lives, and an expression of their desire to find emotional satisfaction with their existence. The function of religion is to satisfy the needs of the individual in question.

Some people wish to look for meaning, and they believe religion is a way to do that. Other people have already made up their minds about the meaning, but want some external force to validate their conclusions. Many people simply want reassurance that they're on the right track, and support from a community of like-minded individuals who share their general values and ideology. Still others are religious out of habit, because they have been brought to believe that a lack of religion would automatically make them a bad person. Religion serves a different purpose for different people, and I don't think any use of religion is any more or less valid than any other.

And yes, that INCLUDES people who use religion as justification for wicked acts. I don't think they are any more or less "right" about religion than people who use God as their inspiration for works of good.

History shows that, when religion becomes the vehicle of social order and control, it becomes politically corrupt.

I don't think history necessarily shows that at all. At least, not if your definition of "corrupt" is anything like my own. I think religion is, and has always been, primarily about social forces and social drives.

I think history shows us that religion is just as likely to become corrupt as any other mechanism of social order. I think religion exists and thrives precisely because it is a vehicle of social order and control. The problem is that most people forget that, regardless of whether or not there is a God, religion is 100% pure human construct. Religion is the way human beings relate to the supernatural, whether or not the supernatural exists. Being a human construct, religion is no better or worse than any other human vehicle for social order (in terms of "corruptness"). It can function smoothly and beautifully, or it can become vile and deeply twisted, but most often it's somewhere in the middle.


Religion does not deal with worldly, mundane matters. When we try to use it to manage such things, we are using it wrong.
I strongly disagree. Religion deals ONLY with worldly, mundane matters, because religion is entirely human. Religion deals with the concrete, mundane, physical human being. Religion is entirely dedicated to that physical being's struggle with their physical, worldly experience of their physical, worldly world. It is only natural that religion would be used to manage physical, worldly matters, because that is precisely what the individual needs it for. For certain, there will be conflict when one individual's religion conflicts with another's, but the idea of using religion to manage worldly affairs is perfectly in keeping with its inherent purpose.

God exists. I invite anybody to try to disprove the idea that God exists. And don't answer me by asking me to prove that God exists.

...The only way to prove that a god exists is through divine means, means that would have had to come from a god in the first place.

...On the other hand, disproving god is a monumental, but feasible task, should it be true.

Actually, proving a negative is manefestly impossible, no matter what the stated topic.

Additionally, please remember that the burder of proof rests with the person making the assertion. If I state that there is a magical invisible elf standing on your shoe, you would rightfully expect me to provide some evidence to support my claim (at least, I hope you would). You would not drop everything you are doing in order to go about proving the non-existence of shoe-sitting magical elves.


On another note, does anybody really believe that this planet was populated by chance. The possibility that each of us is here only due to a number of interacting variables is so astronomically small that there is no reason on earthly limits as to why each of us exists.

The probability of us existing is exactly 1. We do exist.


Do not tell me that this is inevitable. It is not. It is entirely possible that none of what we know today could have ever existed, or would have ever existed.

That is quite true. Any number of things could have occured that would have prevented you from existing. If your mother had not met your father, or even if she had met him a day later than she did, you might not exist today. What's the matter with that?


Anybody that believes he or she is here simply because of chance should be a professional gambler, as they have already beaten the odds of not existing in the first place.

It most certainly is not "simple" chance. As somebody who has spent most of their lifetime barely scratching the surface of biology, allow me to assure you that "simple" is the one word that should never be used to describe our existence.


Until you do become such a professional gambler, you cannot truly say that there is no God.
Until you provide a working, testable definition of God, you cannot truly say that there is one.

God does things for a reason, who are we to question Him, have faith and everything with work out. Live by that.
That never seems to work.

That never seems to work.
"Shut up and pray" has never seemed a very satisfying lifestyle, to me.

I invite you to disprove that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn. Can't? Please give all your worldly possessions to the Church of the Unicorn or it will send you to hell when you die. :rolleyes:

You see, it is not possible to prove a negative, and your statement is therefore a fallicious shift of the burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29). Just because we cannot absolutely disprove the hypothesis that God exists does not mean that there is any evidence to suggest that he does, or that we should accept that possibility as a rational idea.
However, there is some "historical" evidence that God does or did indeed exist. Whether this "evidence" satisfies your intellect is another entirely different matter. Unless you have irrefutable evidence that the "historical evidence" is totally false, then one can still believe, and maintain that there is some rationale that God does indeed exist.

As far as the "invisible pink unicorn" argument is concerned, it is a modern construct and probably is associated with the overuse of mind altering substances. :p

Once a man (don't remember his name) said something like the following thing:

The universe was created by a yellow rabbit a half hour ago. This allmighty rabbit can even make you believe that you exist longer than a half hour!

However, there is some "historical" evidence that God does or did indeed exist. Whether this "evidence" satisfies your intellect is another entirely different matter. Unless you have irrefutable evidence that the "historical evidence" is totally false, then one can still believe, and maintain that there is some rationale that God does indeed exist.

There is no historical evidence that God does (or does not) exist. There is ample evidence that humans throughout history have BELIEVED that God exists, but that doesn't tell us anything about the actual existence of God one way or another.


As far as the "invisible pink unicorn" argument is concerned, it is a modern construct and probably is associated with the overuse of mind altering substances. :p
Rock music is also a modern invention that has been largely developed with the aid of mind-altering substances. Are you arguing that rock music does not exist?

There is no historical evidence that God does (or does not) exist. There is ample evidence that humans throughout history have BELIEVED that God exists, but that doesn't tell us anything about the actual existence of God one way or another.
There is plenty of "historical evidence", which you either choose to ignore or choose not to accept as being valid. Neither you or I can attest to the validity of the "historical evidence", and that is where belief or faith shall be our guide. The spiritual realm is an entirely different aspect of faith or belief in God, of which many have attested to on this thread.

Rock music is also a modern invention that has been largely developed with the aid of mind-altering substances. Are you arguing that rock music does not exist?
Yup, rock music does exist, but the jury is still out on Lucy in the sky with diamonds. :p

There is plenty of "historical evidence", which you either choose to ignore or choose not to accept as being valid. Neither you or I can attest to the validity of the "historical evidence", and that is where belief or faith shall be our guide. The spiritual realm is an entirely different aspect of faith or belief in God, of which many have attested to on this thread.

Again, there is no historical evidence for the existence or non-existence of God. There is evidence that human beings have reported certain events and attributed those events to God/gods, certainly. But there is no evidence, on way or another, regarding the existence of God.

Wasn't the number in the earlier texts actually 616 and not 666?

It actually depends on the Manuscript. Some have it as 666 and others have it at 616.

Hardly. The role of the UN is not to govern the world. Their role is (I quote from their website) "the promotion of peace and security, development and human rights around the world". They are more like a committee than a government.

And headed by a Secretary-General. However, one can use the UN for peace and security. After all, the 1st Seal Judgment is a white horse of peace. One can conquer the world through the UN.

There is no Babylon in Iraq, beyond the archeological remains. But the Babylon on Long Island is a fairly decent town, if you like the beach -- and car dealerships.

Actually....I have a feeling that Babylon will be rebuilt. Heck, Saddam did try to rebuild it.

I have no problem with the concept of God. My problem is the religions that have sprung up proclaiming that only through THEM can a state of grace be achieved.

...that would mean we are the end result of a series of lots of mistakes.
That kinda makes life kinda hollow. I mean fair enough we're pretty damn lucky some time ago a cel turned into a fish then walked on land then turned into a dinosaur that was killed when a giant metorite hit the earth etc. But if there is no higher being (Not neccessary only ONE god) it makes us seems like a really really lucky (or unlucky) mistake that we exist at all.
I say YES to higher being or beings but NO to only one God philospohy.

If there is a God, he/she/it/they will have to be an entity so far above us that it cannot be defined by any of the methods we use to think about reality. In my opinion, belief is either a delusion to stop us all from going nuts, or our minds way of making sense of the God entity my putting it into terms that we can understand. Be that the case, then should any of us ever stand in a position to observe the true nature of god, we would instantly be transferred onto his/her/its/their plane of higher existance.

At least, thats what i think on Mondays.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
I think that using religion to keep certain people in line or to promote social order is a dangerous misuse of religion.
An interesting stance, considering that we have ample evidence to suggest that organized religion exists precisely for that purpose.
Nevertheless, absolutely correct in my opinion. The observed result is not always indicative of the purpose of a thing.

Some people wish to look for meaning, and they believe religion is a way to do that. Other people have already made up their minds about the meaning, but want some external force to validate their conclusions. Many people simply want reassurance that they're on the right track, and support from a community of like-minded individuals who share their general values and ideology. Still others are religious out of habit, because they have been brought to believe that a lack of religion would automatically make them a bad person. Religion serves a different purpose for different people, and I don't think any use of religion is any more or less valid than any other.
But then, they do not "have religion", none of those you mention above. They are seekers. Those who have religion stop seeking it, because they have it.

And yes, that INCLUDES people who use religion as justification for wicked acts. I don't think they are any more or less "right" about religion than people who use God as their inspiration for works of good.


I don't think history necessarily shows that at all. At least, not if your definition of "corrupt" is anything like my own. I think religion is, and has always been, primarily about social forces and social drives.

I think history shows us that religion is just as likely to become corrupt as any other mechanism of social order. I think religion exists and thrives precisely because it is a vehicle of social order and control. The problem is that most people forget that, regardless of whether or not there is a God, religion is 100% pure human construct. Religion is the way human beings relate to the supernatural, whether or not the supernatural exists. Being a human construct, religion is no better or worse than any other human vehicle for social order (in terms of "corruptness"). It can function smoothly and beautifully, or it can become vile and deeply twisted, but most often it's somewhere in the middle.
Religion as a mechanism of social order is what Muravyets was talking about --that is the misuse.

Originally Posted by Muravyets
Religion does not deal with worldly, mundane matters. When we try to use it to manage such things, we are using it wrong.
I strongly disagree. Religion deals ONLY with worldly, mundane matters, because religion is entirely human. Religion deals with the concrete, mundane, physical human being. Religion is entirely dedicated to that physical being's struggle with their physical, worldly experience of their physical, worldly world. It is only natural that religion would be used to manage physical, worldly matters, because that is precisely what the individual needs it for. For certain, there will be conflict when one individual's religion conflicts with another's, but the idea of using religion to manage worldly affairs is perfectly in keeping with its inherent purpose.
Here, I have to agree with you that religion is about us, not about god, and so is mundane. It is we who define it for ourselves, we who practice it, we who experience it (as we know experience), and we who use the knowledge so gained to good ends or bad. I don't believe god needs religion.

I do disagree that religion is exempt of spirit, though. Of course, if you don't grasp spirit, then as it *is* entirely transparent, it might as well not be there.

...that would mean we are the end result of a series of lots of mistakes.
That kinda makes life kinda hollow. I mean fair enough we're pretty damn lucky some time ago a cel turned into a fish then walked on land then turned into a dinosaur that was killed when a giant metorite hit the earth etc. But if there is no higher being (Not neccessary only ONE god) it makes us seems like a really really lucky (or unlucky) mistake that we exist at all.
I say YES to higher being or beings but NO to only one God philospohy.

Evolution isn't dependant on chance.

But then, they do not "have religion", none of those you mention above. They are seekers. Those who have religion stop seeking it, because they have it.

How so? All the people I described "have religion." They just use it for different purposes.


Religion as a mechanism of social order is what Muravyets was talking about --that is the misuse.

I don't think that's a misuse at all. I think that is religion functioning exactly as it is intended to do in a great many situations.

The fact that there are people who use religion for personal "spirituality" does not preclude the existence of people (or societies) who use it for social control. People can do both at the same time. I think neither one of these is more "valid" a use of religion than the other.


Here, I have to agree with you that religion is about us, not about god, and so is mundane. It is we who define it for ourselves, we who practice it, we who experience it (as we know experience), and we who use the knowledge so gained to good ends or bad. I don't believe god needs religion.

I do disagree that religion is exempt of spirit, though. Of course, if you don't grasp spirit, then as it *is* entirely transparent, it might as well not be there.
I never said religion was "exempt of spirit," I simply stated that "spirit" isn't supernatural.

However, there is some "historical" evidence that God does or did indeed exist. Whether this "evidence" satisfies your intellect is another entirely different matter. Unless you have irrefutable evidence that the "historical evidence" is totally false, then one can still believe, and maintain that there is some rationale that God does indeed exist.

As far as the "invisible pink unicorn" argument is concerned, it is a modern construct and probably is associated with the overuse of mind altering substances. :p

But - if you can use that 'argument' (which I believe is MORE than dignifying it...), there are other religions that were long established when the Hebrews were still desert nomads.

Unless you have 'irrefutable evidence' that the 'historical evidence' for the gods of Sumer is totally false, then the biblical accounts MUST be flawed - because they claim there is only ONE god - whereas, earlier sources manifest many more than a single deity.

There is plenty of "historical evidence", which you either choose to ignore or choose not to accept as being valid. Neither you or I can attest to the validity of the "historical evidence", and that is where belief or faith shall be our guide. The spiritual realm is an entirely different aspect of faith or belief in God, of which many have attested to on this thread.

No - there is evidence that people BELIEVED in god/gods. That is NOT the same thing as there being evidence OF god/gods. That's the trouble with anecdotal evidences about something that cannot be independently falsified... they are only as reliable as the human condition... which is to say... not very.

There is plenty of "historical evidence", which you either choose to ignore or choose not to accept as being valid. Neither you or I can attest to the validity of the "historical evidence", and that is where belief or faith shall be our guide. The spiritual realm is an entirely different aspect of faith or belief in God, of which many have attested to on this thread.
What evidence? Like... his toenails?

I saw Mohammed's toenails in Istanbul.

And headed by a Secretary-General.
So?

However, one can use the UN for peace and security. After all, the 1st Seal Judgment is a white horse of peace. One can conquer the world through the UN.
"One" cannot, but a government may request their help.

One cannot conquer the world while nations have autonomy.

...that would mean we are the end result of a series of lots of mistakes.
Mistakes happen. We make them, not Nature. That's how we learn and grow.

This is a good thing.

How so? All the people I described "have religion." They just use it for different purposes.
They may claim to have religion, that's a different thing. If they don't understand what it is they have (have knowledge of it) then they have nothing.

People "looking for meaning" do not have it. People who are looking for an "external force to validate their conclusions" do not have it. People who "want reassurance that they're on the right track" do not have it. People who do it "out of habit" do not have it. There's doing things, and then there's knowledge of what it is you're doing, and why. Those who know what they're doing don't have to seek.

I don't think that's a misuse at all. I think that is religion functioning exactly as it is intended to do in a great many situations.

The fact that there are people who use religion for personal "spirituality" does not preclude the existence of people (or societies) who use it for social control. People can do both at the same time. I think neither one of these is more "valid" a use of religion than the other.
We certainly have different takes on it.

I never said religion was "exempt of spirit," I simply stated that "spirit" isn't supernatural.
Then it isn't "spirit". Supernatural is spirit's only significant property, it exists in contrast to matter/energy (to the body, Nature, and the whole physical world). If it doesn't have that, then it's not spirit we are talking about.

Actually....I have a feeling that Babylon will be rebuilt. Heck, Saddam did try to rebuild it.
Well, call me when it's finished then.

And if the new Babylon doesn't have a beach, then I say the UN would be better off in the old one on Long Island.

Well, call me when it's finished then.

And if the new Babylon doesn't have a beach, then I say the UN would be better off in the old one on Long Island.
How about with the hanging gardens? Would that suffice? :)

There is an God!

And that God's name is Grammar!

How about with the hanging gardens? Would that suffice? :)
Nice idea, but nope -- beachfront properties trump every time. You can't surf in a hanging garden. :)

And that God's name is Grammar!
No, his name is "i am not from an English speaking country"

And that God's name is Grammar!
Kelsey Grammar! Big, blue guy, with lots of hair.

No, his name is "i am not from an English speaking country"

Then, please, take it as a lesson on the proper usage of "an." Free of charge!

The Church of Grammar is a charitable organisation. :p

Then, please, take it as a lesson on the proper usage of "an." Free of charge!

The Church of Grammar is a charitable organisation. :p
OK.

Teach me how, and when to use an AN.:D

(i am serious)

OK.

Teach me how, and when to use an AN.:D

(i am serious)
Generally, before a word that begins with a vowel (a, e, i, o, u).

Originally Posted by Bottle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muravyets
I think that using religion to keep certain people in line or to promote social order is a dangerous misuse of religion.
An interesting stance, considering that we have ample evidence to suggest that organized religion exists precisely for that purpose.
Nevertheless, absolutely correct in my opinion. The observed result is not always indicative of the purpose of a thing.

<snip>

Religion as a mechanism of social order is what Muravyets was talking about --that is the misuse.
I was trying to say that religion is ill-suited for that purpose. It may be good for helping people who are seeking a spiritual path to find one, but it does a poor job with non-spiritual matters like taxation, education, and war. That is what I meant by misuse. I think such misuse is dangerous because, since religion deals with intensely personal and emotional matters for which there are and can be no "reality checks" (since none of it refers to any real-world facts), it is very easy for it to stray into dysfunctional extremes.

Here, I have to agree with you that religion is about us, not about god, and so is mundane. It is we who define it for ourselves, we who practice it, we who experience it (as we know experience), and we who use the knowledge so gained to good ends or bad. I don't believe god needs religion.

I do disagree that religion is exempt of spirit, though. Of course, if you don't grasp spirit, then as it *is* entirely transparent, it might as well not be there.
I was merely drawing a pragmatic distinction between different kinds of topics. Thinking about the nature of the soul (spiritual), for instance, is different from organizing a system of taxation on property (mundane). Religion is good at the former kind of thing and bad at the latter kind of thing. The fact that organized religion has been used as a mechanism of social order in some cultures for over a 1000 years just gives us ample evidence of how badly it does the job.

I was trying to say that religion is ill-suited for that purpose. It may be good for helping people who are seeking a spiritual path to find one, but it does a poor job with non-spiritual matters like taxation, education, and war. That is what I meant by misuse. I think such misuse is dangerous because, since religion deals with intensely personal and emotional matters for which there are and can be no "reality checks" (since none of it refers to any real-world facts), it is very easy for it to stray into dysfunctional extremes.


I was merely drawing a pragmatic distinction between different kinds of topics. Thinking about the nature of the soul (spiritual), for instance, is different from organizing a system of taxation on property (mundane). Religion is good at the former kind of thing and bad at the latter kind of thing. The fact that organized religion has been used as a mechanism of social order in some cultures for over a 1000 years just gives us ample evidence of how badly it does the job.


Most people in the West seem to be able to make the leap that "religion doesn't explain everything".

OK.

Teach me how, and when to use an AN.:D

(i am serious)

You used it correctly right there! :D

Generally, before a word that begins with a vowel (a, e, i, o, u).

Or any word that begins with a consinant, but is spoken with a vowel sound, such as "historical."

Most people in the West seem to be able to make the leap that "religion doesn't explain everything".
Keep your bigotry zipped in your pants, DK. I will not help you to start with that "in the West" bullshit in this thread.

The fact that organized religion has been used as a mechanism of social order in some cultures for over a 1000 years just gives us ample evidence of how badly it does the job.
Well, perhaps I'm not clear on what a "mechanism of social order" means, as the idea of "the Church in position of government" that it brought to my mind has only been valid for about 300-400 years, in Europe at least.

You used it correctly right there! :D



Or any word that begins with a consinant, but is spoken with a vowel sound, such as "historical."
That's only in Britain.

And it's spelled "consonant." :p

Or any word that begins with a consinant, but is spoken with a vowel sound, such as "historical."
Nope. "An historical" is incorrect, as much as we use it in spoken English.

And it's "consonant". ;)

Keep your bigotry zipped in your pants, DK. I will not help you to start with that "in the West" bullshit in this thread.
Ask Aryavartha if it's bullshit where the Deobandi live.

these results are almost 50/50, i expected many morre people to say they did not belive a in a god, almost ervyonei know is an atheist. But then mabey thats just the yonger genaration, or the area i live in

Generally, before a word that begins with a vowel (a, e, i, o, u).
Thanks for the help!:D

Well, perhaps I'm not clear on what a "mechanism of social order" means, as the idea of "the Church in position of government" that it brought to my mind has only been valid for about 300-400 years, in Europe at least.
Really? I thought the church took up the social order role of government further back, dating from about the fall of the Roman Empire. That was less than 1000 years, true, but more than 400. And since I wasn't sure exactly when it happened, I extended it backward to cover the whole last millennium, just as a ballpark figure. I should know better than to be loose with numbers around here. :D

Ask Aryavartha if it's bullshit where the Deobandi live.
Don't start that shit here, man. I'm serious. You have plenty of bigoted threads of your own to play in. This thread is for grown-ups.

That's only in Britain.

Not just in Britain. Besides, they invented the language! :p


And it's spelled "consonant." :p

So it is. I guess it's a good thing I'm not giving lessons in spelling! :eek:

Nope. "An historical" is incorrect, as much as we use it in spoken English.

For Americans it is generally considered to be incorrect because the "h" is usually sounded with an American accent. If you don't sound the "h", it is considered correct to use "an" rather than "a." Whether you use one or the other is entirely dependent on how you sound the word. For instance, we do not say (or write) "an oujia board", because it is not pronounced with a vowel sound. How you write it, I would imagine, is dependent on how you would speak it, so whether you use "an historic" or "a historic" would depend on how you speak. I probably should have clarified that, but I was intending to just be a facetious ass rather than getting into a serious grammatical debate. :p

Can we say off-topic? :eek:

Nope. "An historical" is incorrect, as much as we use it in spoken English.
....
To be pedantic, "An historical", would be perfectly acceptable in English spoken by one born within the sound of a certain set of church bells. As in, "That were an historical moment, that were, Barry".;)

I really don't care, but If I was pushed I would say no.

these results are almost 50/50, i expected many morre people to say they did not belive a in a god, almost ervyonei know is an atheist. But then mabey thats just the yonger genaration, or the area i live in
Or.... maybe some of them are closet theists.

...that would mean we are the end result of a series of lots of mistakes.
That kinda makes life kinda hollow. I mean fair enough we're pretty damn lucky some time ago a cel turned into a fish then walked on land then turned into a dinosaur that was killed when a giant metorite hit the earth etc. But if there is no higher being (Not neccessary only ONE god) it makes us seems like a really really lucky (or unlucky) mistake that we exist at all.
I say YES to higher being or beings but NO to only one God philospohy.
hmmmm if the jewish/christian/islamic god is real we are the end result of a series of a lot of mistakes....

god fucked up the garden of eden

god fucked up the earth so much that he felt he needed to wipe out all life on earth except that that noah collected on his ark

god fucked up humanity so much even after THAT that he had to send his son to die just so that ANY of us get into heaven, 4000 years after the creation of man. (not so much for jews and moslems)

its not all that much more comforting to me.

Really? I thought the church took up the social order role of government further back, dating from about the fall of the Roman Empire. That was less than 1000 years, true, but more than 400. And since I wasn't sure exactly when it happened, I extended it backward to cover the whole last millennium, just as a ballpark figure. I should know better than to be loose with numbers around here. :D
I'm no more sure of myself than you are in that regard. I'm not learned in history or sociology. I was counting since the Renaissance, but I suppose I should be up to the Renaissance, maybe from the Dark Ages, and exclude the last 200 years since the separation of church and state... bah, don't mind me.

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike [B]his heel."


Note, YOUR OFFSPRING... singluar. pointing to one specific offspring.
he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel.
means that this offspring will defeat the serpent's plans and the serpent will be powerless to stop him. No matter how many times the corrupter tried to tempt Jesus away from his duty, Jesus defeated him and full filled God's plan. proving the Serpent to be powerless against Him.
And what's the plural of "your offspring"...?

(Yes, I'm reading old posts.)

And what's the plural of "your offspring"...?

(Yes, I'm reading old posts.)
children.
Offsprings.

and note, HE... not they.

That's fine that you're reading old posts... but be warned there is one between me and SC and Similie that was baised off of a misunderstanding. that has been resolved. :D

hi ppl, im kinda new here, but no in the subject of faith and the mind, iv been all my mental life (since i have the abiliti of reason) thinking about all stuff of god, religion, the human, etc, and i made some conclutions:
-i believe in a dual god, neither good or evil, cause, how u define this 2 terms; good: something that makes a person feel fine, but that doenst mean anything(the drugs make u feel fine, but they damage ur body, soo at the end they rnt good), so lets make another definition, good is wat makes the life continues and alows another human 2 life as much as he can and as fine as he can(but seeing good from that way, then, diyng is a good thing, cause when somone dies he lets someone else lives, the problem is the feling of the sorrounding ppl of the dead one, but when an organism die another one can live from it, so it lets another ppl live, but in their mind they die a bit); and bad or evil is..., wat makes other ppl suffer, but... when somone die other ppl sufer, but that makes oportunities for others, makes space for other animals (including ppl), so thats no bad at all, and seeing boths terms from different points of view u can get different definitions, but at the end, u allways finish comparing whit the other term; so good is wats not bad, and bad is wats not good.(all of this is not soo workd cause this is a casual rasoning, this wasnt prepared, even trough that i had a life or thinking, the ideas r there, but im not going 2 write them all, plus i dont know that much of english xP).
knowing both conceps u cant separate them, somthing is good and bad, therefore, god is both, the holy and the devil, he is above us, and beneath us, he is in us and surrounding us; i believe there is a god, but i dont believe he is in a continuos fight for us whit the debil, i think he is an all, and being it, we r him, we r not make at his image, we r is image, he is us, at the same time that we r him, being all that way, when we die, we dont disapear, cause remember that we r him, so wat we see that banish, realy didnt banish, maib it just move, or transform; when someone die he may b the part of a newborn, soo, why should we get sad when someone let another human live, why we have 2 b so sellfish, mayb, the live of ur friend ended when she married, mayb ended when she was treated like garbage by somone, mayb his life ended in other moment, and it wanst the same, u cant know wat was on her mind, u can only know about was she showed, once i read a phrase, it was in spanish so ill try 2 translate is the best i can: we wont b known for our silent thought.
i cant assure u that she was unhappy, cant assure u that she was death before u know, i cant assure u nothing, but think that if she died it was cause of somthing, remember that the path of the life dont end whit the death, the death is justthe end of an object, and whitout that object wat u think that can limit u; but... this last reasoning only can mather if u believe in the soul, i believe, cause if we dont have soul, wats the difference bwn us and a puppet or a doll, or a genetic created animal (including human). i believe in that and i hope iv been usefull, correct m if im wrong, cause whit my english i think i could made a mistake expresing my self.
Ephinath, this is one of the more interesting posts I have read on this thread (as hard as it was to read ;)). Thank you. I agree with a lot of this.

children.
Offsprings.

and note, HE... not they.
Well, in English offspring is plural as well as singular. "Offsprings" is incorrect. When I say, "Man is wicked and he will pay for his sin," I am talking about man in general, in the plural, not any particular man. It's the same with the offspring.

That's fine that you're reading old posts... but be warned there is one between me and SC and Similie that was baised off of a misunderstanding. that has been resolved. :D
I'll dutifully ignore it. ;)

Well, in English offspring is plural as well as singular. "Offsprings" is incorrect. When I say, "Man is wicked and he will pay for his sin," I am talking about man in general, in the plural. It's the same with the offspring.nope, it's there in the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary. a variant to Offspring. but won't argue it since this isn't an english/grammar thread.

but when reading it, another definition can be Man (males, not species).

and it can be argued that God was also talking about Adam and Eve's geneology as well... in which Jesus is apart of.

I'll dutifully ignore it. ;)

nope, it's there in the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary. a variant to Offspring. but won't argue it since this isn't an english/grammar thread.
Okay, but that's an American language dictionary. I was talking about English.

(Note: interestingly enough, the same difference occurs in words like "shrimp." Outside the USA, you won't find the word "shrimps" because "shrimp," the plural, is used.)

Okay, but that's an American language dictionary. I was talking about English.

(Note: interestingly enough, the same difference occurs in words like "shrimp." Outside the USA, you won't find the word "shrimps" because "shrimp," the plural, is used.)

Like sheep, and moose.

With the world in a mess like this, even a little faith can stop you from descending into madness. Unless you have a psychotic streak of course.

There must be a God. The Big Bang couldn't have been a 'coincidence'. Just my opinion.

With the world in a mess like this, even a little faith can stop you from descending into madness. Unless you have a psychotic streak of course.
Are you saying that Fred Phelps would have been even crazier if he didn't have religion?

There must be a God. The Big Bang couldn't have been a 'coincidence'. Just my opinion.
"Coincidence" decribes two separate incidents that appear to be related but really are not. So what do you think the Big Bang was not coincident with?

So what do you think the Big Bang was not coincident with?
The Big Ecstasy?
The Big Amyl Nitrate?
The Big Gang?
The Bi-*muffles*


*sound of meat-encased skull being lightly tenderized*
*scraping and dragging*

The Big Ecstasy?
The Big Amyl Nitrate?
The Big Gang?
The Bi-*muffles*


*sound of meat-encased skull being lightly tenderized*
*scraping and dragging*
:D :D :D

I can always rely on you to start the job and finish it for me, too. :fluffle:

Are you saying that Fred Phelps would have been even crazier if he didn't have religion?
I believe there was a disclaimer in there about "unless you have a psychotic streak". I would say that Fred Phelps is, if not clinically psychotic, neurotic to a very unhealthy degree.

P.S.: Although the "Yes" answer on the poll has never been down by more than two points, I think this may be the first time I've seen it ahead-- 997 to 996

:D :D :D

I can always rely on you to start the job and finish it for me, too. :fluffle:
Must be the /C aspect. :)

Wait - isn't there a bathtub involved?

So?

Think!

"One" cannot, but a government may request their help.

One cannot conquer the world while nations have autonomy.

Given the right charisma and the "proper" persuasion, one can. The Anti-Christ is NOT going to be a normal person. He'll have christ-like abilities but is NOTHING like our Lord Savior Jesus Christ for he will use his powers for evil.

these results are almost 50/50, i expected many morre people to say they did not belive a in a god, almost ervyonei know is an atheist. But then mabey thats just the yonger genaration, or the area i live in

Maybe! Either that or they keep their religion to themselves. That's also a possibility.

these results are almost 50/50, i expected many morre people to say they did not belive a in a god, almost ervyonei know is an atheist. But then mabey thats just the yonger genaration, or the area i live in

Atheism is the dominant view among young Britons; I don't know if the trend is the same world wide.

I will believe in any god whose existance can be proven through logical debate. Or if said God is particularly cool.

Like Osiris

Think!
What I think is that a Secretary General is in charge of coordinating military and peace-keeping missions. He works directly under the President of the UN.

Given the right charisma and the "proper" persuasion, one can. The Anti-Christ is NOT going to be a normal person. He'll have christ-like abilities but is NOTHING like our Lord Savior Jesus Christ for he will use his powers for evil.
If he has Christ-like abilities, doesn't that mean he can offer everyone eternal salvation?

Your assertion is laughable. The UN cannot be persuaded to take over the world. It's against their mandate, and they simply do not have the manpower to enforce such a thing. (Manpower that consists, by the way, of diplomats, policemen and researchers.)

I will believe in any god whose existance can be proven through logical debate. Or if said God is particularly cool.

Like Osiris
Orisis was cool. Resurrection is always cool --just ask Jesus.

What I think is that a Secretary General is in charge of coordinating military and peace-keeping missions. He works directly under the President of the UN.

Then you have a problem for there is no president of the UN. There is the President of the UNSC and the Secretary-General.

If he has Christ-like abilities, doesn't that mean he can offer everyone eternal salvation?

In this case, it is eternal damnation.

Your assertion is laughable. The UN cannot be persuaded to take over the world.

Care to place bets?

It's against their mandate, and they simply do not have the manpower to enforce such a thing. (Manpower that consists, by the way, of diplomats, policemen and researchers.)

Again, do not underestimate the power of the Anti-Christ.

Then you have a problem for there is no president of the UN. There is the President of the UNSC and the Secretary-General.
There is a President, his name is Jan Eliasson.

In this case, it is eternal damnation.
Then it's not very Christ-like.

And don't we already have that?

Care to place bets?


Again, do not underestimate the power of the Anti-Christ.
I don't estimate it at all. I give the Anti-Christ no power.

There is a President, his name is Jan Eliasson.

Then why is he an unkown? Oh yea because he doesn't have any power whatsoever.

I don't estimate it at all. I give the Anti-Christ no power.

If he comes while you are still alive, he'll have power over you unless you are protected by the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

Then why is he an unkown? Oh yea because he doesn't have any power whatsoever.
He's not unknown.

If he comes while you are still alive, he'll have power over you unless you are protected by the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.
You give him power by believing in him. That is the only power he has.

He's not unknown.

Then why isn't he out in the public? I watch the news. He's hardly ever mentioned.

You give him power by believing in him. That is the only power he has.

Yea. Just continue to tell yourself that.

Then why isn't he out in the public? I watch the news. He's hardly ever mentioned.
What makes you think he isn't? You watch American news. Enough said.

Yea. Just continue to tell yourself that.
This is just like the whole "Satan's greatest trick was making people believe he doesn't exist" nonsense.

What makes you think he isn't? You watch American news. Enough said.

Wrong oh Willamena. I get the news from all over the world with one click of the mouse. I've read many articles and he is hardly ever mentioned and that's including British News as well.

This is just like the whole "Satan's greatest trick was making people believe he doesn't exist" nonsense.

Oh he exists alright.

Corneliu, can I jump in here and ask you a very random question?


Do you believe that Jesus had a kid?

Just asking because there's something on Discovery Channel on the topic of it..

Oh he exists alright.

You called?

Corneliu, can I jump in here and ask you a very random question?


Do you believe that Jesus had a kid?

Just asking because there's something on Discovery Channel on the topic of it..

No.

You called?

Yea. I'm telling you to butt out of the world. Your side is going to lose anyway so why continue to fight. Surrender now and accept your fate.

Wrong oh Willamena. I get the news from all over the world with one click of the mouse. I've read many articles and he is hardly ever mentioned and that's including British News as well.
You do realise that not being in the news doesn't mean he doesn't exist?

Oh he exists alright.
You do realise that if he doesn't exist, you are the only thing giving him power over you?

No.
Why not?

Why not?

Because he came down to Earth to save us all for whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Yea. I'm telling you to butt out of the world. Your side is going to lose anyway so why continue to fight. Surrender now and accept your fate.

We're going to lose? Phah. I have already won.


You do realise that if he doesn't exist, you are the only thing giving him power over you?

I feel unwanted :(

Because he came down to Earth to save us all for whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

It would be pretty nasty if it turned out he didn't exist, wouldn't it? I mean, all those people you considered sinners, had a the best time of their life. Yet you totally wasted your life.

Good thing you think he's real then :)

Because he came down to Earth to save us all for whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
I asked if he knocked up Mary Magdalene..

We're going to lose? Phah. I have already won.

No you have not for the Lord will destroy the armies you gather against him with the power of the Word. You will be tossed into the abyss for a 1000 years and then you will be destroyed. Evil has already lost. All that is left, is Armaggedon.

I feel unwanted :(

That's because you are. Depart from us.

Then why isn't he out in the public? I watch the news. He's hardly ever mentioned.


This COULD be the famed 'American Insularism'...

I asked if he knocked up Mary Magdalene..

no.

no.
Then I asked why you said no, and you gave me an off topic reply.

Oh he exists alright.

No, 'he' doesn't.

There is no single 'Satan'... even in the old testament, it was a 'job' that could be performed by ANY of the Angelic Choir... not the name of an individual.

(That is why the Hebrew uses the term 'HaSatan' - "The Satan".)

No you have not for the Lord will destroy the armies you gather against him with the power of the Word. You will be tossed into the abyss for a 1000 years and then you will be destroyed. Evil has already lost. All that is left, is Armaggedon.

Oh yes. I will be stunned to find out that God finally learned to talk. So stunned that you can throw me into the abyss?

Whoever wrote that? He must've been pretty high at the time.


That's because you are. Depart from us.

Don't be hatin' man. I have rights too you know. :p

Then I asked why you said no, and you gave me an off topic reply.

No it wasn't offtopic. It was on topic for the title of your own thread isdo you have faith in God. I answered the question in the context of the thread.

In answer to your offtopic question, the answer is no he did not for the reason that he came down to Earth from the Throne of God to save us all from spiritual death.

I asked if he knocked up Mary Magdalene..

In all probability, Jesus was married, with a family, if he existed at all.

He is not described as being UNmarried, he is not described as being WITHOUT a family - and both would have been big deals, in his society, at that time.

Therefore, the most logical asumption, would be married, with children.

Yea. I don't get the whole "Jeezy C died for our sins" business. I mean, he didn't really die, did he? Since he was a part of God and all (Or was/is God. Or something). And he resurrected himself for the japes, which pretty much makes a mockery of dying in the first place.

Worshipping Christ is like worshipping Bill Murray in Groundhog Day,

No it wasn't offtopic. It was on topic for the title of your own thread isdo you have faith in God. I answered the question in the context of the thread.

In answer to your offtopic question, the answer is no he did not for the reason that he came down to Earth from the Throne of God to save us all from spiritual death.
So God told Jesus to be a prude?

In all probability, Jesus was married, with a family, if he existed at all.

He is not described as being UNmarried, he is not described as being WITHOUT a family - and both would have been big deals, in his society, at that time.

Therefore, the most logical asumption, would be married, with children.
Thank you for an actual answer.

:fluffle:

Oh yes. I will be stunned to find out that God fonally learned to talk. So stunned that you can throw me into the abyss?

Whoever wrote that? He must've been pretty high at the time.

No one was high at the time of the writing. And it isn't God who will be talking but the Lord Savior Jesus Christ whom you got crucified and was raised again in 3 days. He will return on a white horse and destroy his enemies and will toss the Anti-Christ and his false prophet into the lake of fire.

Don't be hatin' man. I have rights too you know. :p

Rights? You have already been condemned Satan.

the poll is at

1003 YES
1001 NO

talk about tight

So God told Jesus to be a prude?

Nope. He sacrificed his only son to save us all from Spiritual Death.

We're going to lose? Phah. I have already won.


I feel unwanted :(
You shouldn't. That's the WAY you're going to win. ;)

He will return on a white horse and destroy his enemies and will toss the Anti-Christ and his false prophet into the lake of fire.


Foolish mortal. That's death on the white horse, not Jesus.

Because he came down to Earth to save us all for whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
And that means he can't have kids?

Foolish mortal. That's death on the white horse, not Jesus.

Actually no. Death is on a pale horse and not a white horse.

And that means he can't have kids?

why would he if he was only going to be alive for a short time?

Actually no. Death is on a pale horse and not a white horse.

Oh, I see. So what colour is "pale"?

Nope. He sacrificed his only son to save us all from Spiritual Death.
But I thought we were all Gods' children?

And you're saying in the years Jesus may have been alive, he never had sex?

Oh, I see. So what colour is "pale"?

Not white that's for sure.

But I thought we were all Gods' children?

We are and that is why it pains him when we reject God and his Son Jesus.

why would he if he was only going to be alive for a short time?
That's the best reason to have them, to have progeny.

Didn't you see the Lion King? "He lives in you."

i am not religious. From what I can reason, all of you are. Are there any atheists out there?

i am not religious. From what I can reason, all of you are. Are there any atheists out there?

Many of them.

That's the best reason to have them, to have progeny.

Didn't you see the Lion King? "He lives in you."

Great. Use a cartoon. I'll stick with real life.

We are and that is why it pains him when we reject God and his Son Jesus.

I'm an anti-semite so I can't accept Jesus.
:P
Just kidding.

I'm an anti-semite so I can't accept Jesus.
:P
Just kidding.

You do not have to be a jew to accept the Savior Jesus Christ.

Not white that's for sure.

Right. So when people say - "you're really pale. You look like you've seen a ghost. My God man, you're as white as a sheet", they're actually using antonyms?

What colour will the horse be then? Pale yellow? Pale mauve? Pale blue?

Gosh, it's be really confusing if, for instance, there are two horses the same colour on judgement day, wouldn't it? Real admin cock-up in heaven, I'd say. I hope you're around to point out who's who on that day, otherwise ah'm afraid'a mah soul'uh be lowst!!

What about siblings?

If Jesus did exist (and there is evidence from the Roman history of the region that he, as a human being, did) then are we to really believe that Mary and Joseph never consummated their relationship, and had a thirty year marriage with Mary remaining a virgin?

The odds are pretty low that after the birth of Jesus the two of them did not have further issue. It also follows that these bothers and sisters of the man called Jesus would most likely have descendants.



While we're on this this train of thought, let's also challenge the idea of God as an omnipotent, omnicogniscient and omnipresent being.

Consider this propostition:

In the Kingdom of Heaven, God created his Angels. Creatures without free will.

Chief among his Angels, at God's right hand, was the angel named Lucifer Morningstar, The Light Of The Morning, The Light-Bearer. (Lucifer is from the Latin lux (light; genitive lucis) and ferre (to bear, to bring) lit light bringer).

God's creation of his most favoured creatures, man, with free will caused jealousy among the Angels. Led by Lucifer, the Angels revolted against God in Heaven. A battle occured and ultimately, Lucifer and his followers were cast-down to hell.

Right - now the questions.

1a. If God created the Angels without free-will:
1b. If God is omnicognisent and omnipresent:
how did the Angels manage to a. plot to revolt against God and b. plot to revolt against God without his knowing especially in his backyard - Heaven?

2. If God is omnipotent why did it take a battle in the Kingdom of Heaven for him to cast down Lucifer and his cronies?

We are and that is why it pains him when we reject God and his Son Jesus.


It is our God given right to reject them. We were given free will so that we can CHOOSE to reject God. It is not fair that God should punish us for chosing something that doesn't conform to his wants and needs. God is the most unfair and amoral being I know. I want nothing to do with him if he wants to be like that.

What about siblings?

That I will say he did have brothers and sisters.

It is our God given right to reject them. We were given free will so that we can CHOOSE to reject God. It is not fair that God should punish us for chosing something that doesn't conform to his wants and needs.

Why shouldn't you be punished? You rejected the father and it is the Father's responsibility to punish his children.

God is the most unfair and amoral being I know. I want nothing to do with him if he wants to be like that.

That is your choice but you will have to suffer the consequences in the end.

Great. Use a cartoon. I'll stick with real life.
Like Noah and the Ark?

Orisis was cool. Resurrection is always cool --just ask Jesus.

Osiris still is cool. ;)

It is our God given right to reject them. We were given free will so that we can CHOOSE to reject God. It is not fair that God should punish us for chosing something that doesn't conform to his wants and needs. God is the most unfair and amoral being I know. I want nothing to do with him if he wants to be like that.
Actually, it is punishing us for something that DOES conform to his wants and needs. He wanted and needed us to have free will.

Like Noah and the Ark?

Since that is real life...yes.

Why shouldn't you be punished? You rejected the father and it is the Father's responsibility to punish his children.

if God loved me he would accept me for who I am and invite me to stay in heaven anyway. But since God obviously doesn't love me for who I am, I'm not going to make an effort to love God for who he is. The difference is, God created me so that I can love him. He wants my love. I don't want his. It's in Gods best interest not to be a bastard. That's why he shouldn't punish me.



That is your choice but you will have to suffer the consequences in the end.

And I'll enjoy it immensely.