NationStates Jolt Archive

OIC. When you said a lot to answer for, I took that to mean that in an authoritative demanding context like if a mom says to her son: "Young man, if I get home from the market and your homework still isn't done, you'll have a lot to answer for!"

Maybe it's a cultural thing.

Anywho, I agree that there would be a cubic buttload of questions from all sides, and He'd be inundated. It would be a long press conference indeed ;)

I'd be particularly interested in the explanation of the paradox of omniscience and free will, let alone that of omniscience and benevolence ;)

Acknowledging omniscience, yes. Acknowledging unbroken eternal benevolence, no.

As Bottle said, from what I know and hear about the god of the bible, I can't see him to be benevolent in any way, sorry. And I'm not going to submit to omniscience for its own sake. You are free to call that arrogant if you like, but I've learned to always distrust authority and to always question it, no matter what.

What you said makes more sense than the people I was calling out, because you're not talking about trials for crimes against humanity and other such nonsense.

But let me ask you this: (And this isn't a prosletyzing tool it's just a point I'm trying to make) is it possible that such a Being might have an insight into those issues that we, as mortal humans lack? And that maybe things aren't as they seem?

there would be a cubic buttload of questions from all sides, and He'd be inundated. It would be a long press conference indeed
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Perhaps he would simply use the same magic power that was used to ensure that "there is no question of the identity of the individual goving the press conference" to ensure that everyone, everywhere was immediately aware of all of his answers to all of the questions.

Sorry to make it sound so silly, and I know that you answered this objection on page 1 after I raised it, but that's just how I tend to react to such outlandish hypotheticals being used as the premise for debate.

You're not going to get reasonable debate when you tie the hands of one side by stating that they can't/shouldn't ask for evidence to verify this individual's claims to be who they say they are. Such evidence would be a fundamental part of what any people who previously disbelieved would have to have to hand before they took any of it seriously.

I'd be particularly interested in the explanation of the paradox of omniscience and free will, let alone that of omniscience and benevolence ;)

I'd be right there with you.

So your personal belief is a conglomeration (not to put a negative spin on the phrase) of other, pre-existing traditions, with a little modern flavor? That's pretty interesting. It's surprising how many people I know who hold beliefs like that. One of my good friends, and a former room mate, believes in what can best be described as the "best parts" of Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. mixed together into something that makes sense pretty much exclusively for him.
Well, that's how animism works. Traditionally.

Animist beliefs are personal and about the here and now. We honor the spirits that are involved with our lives, directly, in what we see as practical ways. I am not a farmer, so there is little need for me to concern myself with earth fertility spirits/gods. But I do live in a big city, so there is a point for me to concern myself with the spirits/gods that protect houses from fire or crime, or run transportation systems, etc. (I spend a great deal of my spiritual time maintaining my relationship with the spirit of the Orange Line trains in Boston. ;) )

European animist beliefs (which survive in the cultures from pre-Christian times) emphasize veneration of the dead and ancestors. Well, my most influential "ancestors" are recent ones, and American, so their symbols and stories do not have the same style as the much older rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance.

And also, animists typically do not have much anxiety about what happens after death. I personally have no anxiety about it. So a god that is primarily concerned with afterlife, will have little to offer me -- no problem to solve, no help to offer. That is why I am not interested in the God of Abraham. If I felt I needed assistance with my afterlife, then, under the rules of animism, I could worship him in the full-on Christian way, but still remain an animist and continue to practice animism at the same time.

I don't do that because I don't feel a need to.

IMAGE

Let me ask you this: Is death the worst thing that can happen to a person? If there's no afterlife then I'd agree it is. What if there IS an afterlife?


Why would anyone submit to an omniscient being? Do you submit to people who know more than you? Maybe we should all have a knowledge comparison contest to see who gets to rule the world.

There's a big difference between being the smartest guy in the room and being omniscient.

Also remember that submitting to God isn't done just because He's omniscient. What about the fact that He's the creator? For those who follow Him, wouldn't you think that's a reasonable reason for a person to submit to His will? Still no? What if His motivations are in your best interests?

In this thread, I don't think atheists can be accused of that sort of "pushing," since the OP specifically asks them to share their thoughts on this subject.

If I ask a religious believer a specific question about his beliefs, I don't get to turn around and whine that he's pushing his beliefs on me when he answers my question.
I didn't mean just in this thread. I mean in general. And I also do not mean that all atheists or all theists do this. I think you and I can agree that there is a vocal minority on both sides.

What you said makes more sense than the people I was calling out, because you're not talking about trials for crimes against humanity and other such nonsense.

But let me ask you this: (And this isn't a prosletyzing tool it's just a point I'm trying to make) is it possible that such a Being might have an insight into those issues that we, as mortal humans lack? And that maybe things aren't as they seem?

You've just re-phrased what you kept saying all along anyway ;)
God might know more than we do, and therefore his actions might be good and justified after all.
Possible, definitely. But if he asked me to simply accept that and believe it, he wouldn't get far, I'm afraid. He'd have to explain, in a clear, concise way. No parables or anything. Facts, please.

In the spirit of the "sister" thread asking what Christians would do if Jesus were demonstrably proven to not have existed, I present the following scneario:

You wake up one morning and get out of bed, mouth tasting like carpet and your neck aching from that crummy old pillow you've been meaning to replace since back when there was only one Battlestar Galactica and the most controversial thing to come out of the White House was the fate of a conspicuous blue dress. You stumble out into the kitchen to get the cofeemaker going and you absently hit the 'power' button on your TV remote, wishing for the umpteenth time you'd gotten more than just the basic cable package so you could be watching something worthwhile, other than the network newscast.

At first, you don't notice that there's a press conference on, so you pour your cup of coffee and start debating on whether you can get away with wearing the same pair of pants as yesterday, laundry being tomorrow. Eventually you look at the TV and there's some Government official, making the announcement "Ladies and Gentlemen of the World... We have just learned that Jesus of Nazareth, the actual Son of God and the Christ has returned to the Earth, and would like to make a statement." You dig into your ear to be sure you heard right as the mike is turned over to a fellow with a beard and long brown hair, who clears his throat and begins to speak. You don't even hear the sound of your coffee mug crashing to the floor, fallen from your stunned fingers.

So? To you folks who aren't Christian... (and assuming there is no question of the identity of the individual goving the press conference)

What do you do?

First, I would wonder why there's an idiot dictating my life and why I have a coffee maker I never purchased.

I would then watch in amusement as people like Pat Robertson are bitch smacked by Jesus himself.

As the goddess of chocolate and sex, I GET worshipped. Not the other way round :D

OIC. This religion stuff is complicated. So are you omnipotent? Or do people just do what you say cos of the sex thing?

Let me ask you this: Is death the worst thing that can happen to a person? If there's no afterlife then I'd agree it is. What if there IS an afterlife?

If there is, and the choices are between forever worshipping god or burning in hell, I for one intend to make my life as long as possible. Neither seem very attractive options.

If there is, and the choices are between forever worshipping god or burning in hell, I for one intend to make my life as long as possible. Neither seem very attractive options.
I gotta admit, if I found out that the Christian vision of the afterlife was real, I'd probably become insanely depressed. It would mean that no matter what I would be spending eternity in a place I hated. That would suck.

If that's the way it works in the Hindu system then I can see where it might seem strange that someone like me would find that nonsensical. In the Judeo-Christian point of view, one of the givens is that God has the 'big picture' perspective and we don't, so things that we might find troubling or confusing are only so because we don't see it the way He does.

Hm. Actually, there is no Judeo-Christian point of view. The whole point of Christianity is not to be put in one drawer with Judaism. And, frankly, I'd rather you didn't argue Judaism and Christianity were of the same opinion on any count concerning G'd, because I don't think they are, at all. First of all, the G'd I believe in would never sacrifice anyone's son. He'd tell you he wants you to sacrifice your son, but then he'll chicken out at the last minute. Second of all, he just wouldn't father anyone, because the one thing G'd most definitely is not is human. Third of all, the G'd I believe in would not put forth a philosophy of self-loathing the way Jesus supposedly did (right cheek, last shirt, mercy before justice, love thine enemy, you know the song).

Now, since G'd has made a covenant with us never to send a Flood again, and since, of course a contract is completely worthless unless G'd could be held accountable for its breach, there must be some kind of possibility to judge G'd. Otherwise, why have a covenant, why have a testament? From a contractual point of view it's absolutely sensible to postulate that even G'd must be judged in the end. It'll be his job to use his omniscience and rhetoric skills to prove himself not guilty. :cool:

I gotta admit, if I found out that the Christian vision of the afterlife was real, I'd probably become insanely depressed. It would mean that no matter what I would be spending eternity in a place I hated. That would suck.

Yup. No more simple non-existence to look forward to... :(

You've just re-phrased what you kept saying all along anyway ;)

Well at least I'm consistent ;)


God might know more than we do, and therefore his actions might be good and justified after all.
Possible, definitely. But if he asked me to simply accept that and believe it, he wouldn't get far, I'm afraid. He'd have to explain, in a clear, concise way. No parables or anything. Facts, please.

Point taken.

If there is, and the choices are between forever worshipping god or burning in hell, I for one intend to make my life as long as possible. Neither seem very attractive options.

It's interesting because in principle, I wouldn't be too far in disagreement. And I know this is a side note but I feel it's worth mentioning: Heavin, in my understanding, isn't just a great big church on a fluffy cloud filled with harps and angels and people singing and praying for all eternity.

::shudder::

Heaven is just the name fo the next stage in our eternal growth. We don't stagnate as angels or as resurrected beings. We'll continue to grow, to learn, to increase. But that's all for another time. :)

Hm. Actually, there is no Judeo-Christian point of view. The whole point of Christianity is not to be put in one drawer with Judaism. And, frankly, I'd rather you didn't argue Judaism and Christianity were of the same opinion on any count concerning G'd, because I don't think they are, at all. First of all, the G'd I believe in would never sacrifice anyone's son. He'd tell you he wants you to sacrifice your son, but then he'll chicken out at the last minute. Second of all, he just wouldn't father anyone, because the one thing G'd most definitely is not is human. Third of all, the G'd I believe in would not put forth a philosophy of self-loathing the way Jesus supposedly did (right cheek, last shirt, mercy before justice, love thine enemy, you know the song).

Now, since G'd has made a covenant with us never to send a Flood again, and since, of course a contract is completely worthless unless G'd could be held accountable for its breach, there must be some kind of possibility to judge G'd. Otherwise, why have a covenant, why have a testament? From a contractual point of view it's absolutely sensible to postulate that even G'd must be judged in the end. It'll be his job to use his omniscience and rhetoric skills to prove himself not guilty. :cool:

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think on it over my lunch break ;)

To the former... Christianity isn't (meant) to be about self-loathing. Loving one's neighbor and self-sacrifice is about charity, not self punishment. (I know some people see it that way, but I would dispute it.)

It's interesting because in principle, I wouldn't be too far in disagreement. And I know this is a side note but I feel it's worth mentioning: Heavin, in my understanding, isn't just a great big church on a fluffy cloud filled with harps and angels and people singing and praying for all eternity.

::shudder::

Heaven is just the name fo the next stage in our eternal growth. We don't stagnate as angels or as resurrected beings. We'll continue to grow, to learn, to increase. But that's all for another time. :)

If I remember correctly, the bible isn't very clear on what exactly heaven is going to be like, it just drops a few hints on "eternal life".
That's not what I would want. I've been referred to as an "old soul" a while back, I don't want to go on living once I'm dead. I just want to die and cease to exist. No reincarnation, no eternal life, just plain nothing.

I gotta admit, if I found out that the Christian vision of the afterlife was real, I'd probably become insanely depressed. It would mean that no matter what I would be spending eternity in a place I hated. That would suck.

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners
than sing with the saints.
The sinners are much more fun."

That's an interesting point. I'll have to think on it over my lunch break ;)

To the former... Christianity isn't (meant) to be about self-loathing. Loving one's neighbor and self-sacrifice is about charity, not self punishment. (I know some people see it that way, but I would dispute it.)

I take it you haven't met my neighbours... loving them would require a certain level of masochism, believe me.

Although, for the record, there is a lot more than just eternal life in the Bible in terms of what's coming next.
Everybody gets a castle, and we all sing 'Hosanna!' for eternity, if my memory of Sunday School isn't too rusty.

If I remember correctly, the bible isn't very clear on what exactly heaven is going to be like, it just drops a few hints on "eternal life".
That's not what I would want. I've been referred to as an "old soul" a while back, I don't want to go on living once I'm dead. I just want to die and cease to exist. No reincarnation, no eternal life, just plain nothing.

Well remember I'm a Mormon so the Bible isn't the only source of info about that. ;)

Although, for the record, there is a lot more than just eternal life in the Bible in terms of what's coming next.

Everybody gets a castle, and we all sing 'Hosanna!' for eternity, if my memory of Sunday School isn't too rusty.

You know who else gets castles and eternal life? Liches. And they don't have to sing hymns until the end of time, either.

Everybody gets a castle, and we all sing 'Hosanna!' for eternity, if my memory of Sunday School isn't too rusty.

Oh hellz no...

I take it you haven't met my neighbours... loving them would require a certain level of masochism, believe me.

LOL

You know who else gets castles and eternal life? Liches. And they don't have to sing hymns until the end of time, either.

I like your style :q

Also, they get to be bad-ass, scarey wizards. And they have minions. Minions!

I'd be amazed, listen to what he has to say and adapt to the fact that i had been wrong all life, but i would propably not worship him. I'd love to have a chat with him though.

If it would happen, that is.

I'm not asking you to listen to me. Never have. My source is the Bible and yes, it does specifically say the things I'm talking about. More on that later:
Sorry, NB, you say that I'm just projecting my "angst" on you, but I think you demonstrate that you are the one projecting, as well as imposing negative characterizations onto me. All I did was lay out for you the thinking of an unbeliever. You asked specifically for responses from unbelievers. Well, what do you think makes a person an unbeliever, aside from the fact that they do not believe what they are told about your religion? Yet, just as I said, rather than simply accept the fact that this is how an unbeliever sees the matter, you arrogantly presume to suggest that I have "angst" and are being otherwise intellectually or emotionally dishonest.

What arguments? This entire thread is based upon a hypothetical. If you don't like hypotheticals then don't bother with it. Nowhere in it have I tried to prove anything. That's why I keep saying 'if you accept the premise..." precisely because it's a hypothetical. If you don't accept the premise then it's all moot so there's no point going any further.
Are we going to quibble about vocabulary now? I used "argument" in the sense of a premise that is presented, explained, and defended in the context of a debate.

And frankly, you cannot just invoke the "if you accept the premise" disclaimer to get you off every hook. You did not say anything like, "Well, I want to explain how believers think, and to understand that, we must accept these premises as given." No, you were saying that unbelievers are arrogant and humorous in your view because they don't think in a way which one can only do if one accepts your premises. So you were using your premises to tell us that we are wrong, and to do so in belittling terms.

I know that. And I know how much you delight in saying so.
And here we have a condescending little personal dig that has nothing at all to do with the discussion. You know, you have complained in other threads about people attacking Christian beliefs, but I'm starting to wonder just what constitutes an "attack" in your mind. It seems that you get annoyed at the mere existence of people who do not share Christian beliefs, as if you would prefer us to simply never speak around you at all. Well, NB, as Bottle said, if you don't want to hear what unbelievers think, don't ask us what we think. If you're tired of hearing me say I don't believe in your Bible, stop asking me to accept it as a premise for your positions/arguments.


In terms of this thread, everything I've said has been deliberately hypothetical precisely because the intended audience of the thread is non-Christians. Since non-Christians are people who don't believe in the Bible or any of that 'Christian stuff' then any discussion of the issues therin MUST be hypothetical for the purpose of discussion.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you were hoping that in this hypothetical thread, non-believers would pretend to be believers and just accept the whole construct of god and Jesus and the second coming, etc, and not say that they would require proof or answers to their questions before joining the religion?

In other words, were you hoping that we would all just say, "Oh, if he really did come back, then sure, of course, I'd believe and obey immediately, without the slightest hesitation"?

It is the nature of unbelievers to disbelieve, so to expect them not to say, "Well, then I'd want my questions answered to my satisifaction" or even "I wouldn't care" would not be realistic. The unbelievers here have given you honest answers, I think.


Now you're crossing a line so I invite you to back off. I'm not scoring non-believers for arrogance. I have been quite clear so there's no excuse for you saying this. My arrogance comments were directed specifically at those who, within this hypothetical scenario, would presume to judge a supreme Being.
I stand by my statement, as it is based on my reading of your remarks. I decline to back off of it.

I know you have a chip on your shoulder, and I know how proud of it you are, but the least you can do is keep it in context.

I'm snipping the rest of that paragraph because it argues against something I'm not doing so I have no response for it.
Ignore what points you like.

Others maybe, but show me where I've pushed my belief on anybody else.
I did not say you were pushing your beliefs onto people in this thread. I do think you are presuming that your beliefs are factual and you are speaking in not very nice tones to people who relate to the issue differently than you.

I elaborated on the rest in my other post, but suffice it to say I think you're projecting a lot of your angst on me. Sometimes I provoke it, sometimes I don't, but I know you're misunderstanding me now.

And I'm pretty sure you won't admit it.
And I'm pretty sure that this is another example of your arrogance directed against another. You presume that I have "a lot of angst" although you don't know me at all, and I do not believe that I have ever said anything that idicates that I have angst. I believe you are simply negatively characterizing my opinions about your religion as angst, but I wonder what you think I'm feeling angst about. What is it that you think unsettles me so, or fills me with fear or anxiety?

And why should I admit to doing something that I do not think I have done. You say I am misunderstanding you. I notice that you make no effort to explain yourself better. So I am just supposed to take your word for it that I am wrong, just as I am supposed to take your word for it that your understanding of you god is correct?

Everybody gets a castle, and we all sing 'Hosanna!' for eternity, if my memory of Sunday School isn't too rusty.

I can't sing, so I'll just be at the bar.

Dude, I'm a christian and I have two problems with this scenario:

1. Jesus was Jewish in lineage and of the line of david therefore he would not be Caucasian.

2. The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus will come in "the twinkling of an eye" therefore one instant u an me will be doing wutever we r doing (if in fact u r saved) and the other instant we will be looking upon God himself and speechless with awe.

Just a couple corrections dude.

And one more thing, threads having to do with religion usually end up with everyone angry, they aren't really a good idea on NS. I'm not saying to hide ur faith, but try not to reveal it in a way that will bring out the worst in people.

Let me ask you this: Is death the worst thing that can happen to a person? If there's no afterlife then I'd agree it is. What if there IS an afterlife?

<snip>
On the other hand, the Stoics and some other Greek philosophers suggested that the absence of an afterlife would lead to freedom from all fear. If there is nothing after death, then there is nothing to worry to about, was their argument.

2. The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus will come in "the twinkling of an eye" therefore one instant u an me will be doing wutever we r doing (if in fact u r saved) and the other instant we will be looking upon God himself and speechless with awe.


That's gonna suck for anyone on the toilet.

I think my first reaction would be to laugh hysterically at the absurdity of the situation---I lived to see Jesus on TV. Brilliant.

I can only assume that I've already heard incontrovertible evidence as to why Christ is actually on the boob tube. So in that case, I'd listen to what he's got to say. If he tells the world that the end is nigh and that only the repentant shall join him in eternal paradise, then I will turn off the television and go take a nap. If he says something a bit different---say, reveals the meaning of life, welcomes man into the next stage of immortal existence, chastises some of the hateful messengers that have represented him over the last two millenniums....Then I'll grin with noted interested, wait politely for him to sign off, and then go lay down for a nap.

I suppose that once I'd woken up I would have to track down ol' JC so I can have a chat with him. After all, who could deliver greater theological debate than the messiah?

First of all, if he was preempting Heroes or Lost, I would be pretty pissed.


But I - like many others - would love for him to answer questions about the suffering and evil in the world and why he (and his father) as an all-powerful deity chose to ignore it.


Then I would probably watch some porn.

I love all these witty "I don't give a damn" type responses. Truth is that if Jesus was back on earth right now, all the people would be on there knees bowing and praising him.

If Jesus did exist and if he had the power to end world hunger, wars, cure incurable diseases and has done zip, zero, nothing, nada about these things after all these years he is not worthy of worship, he is worthy of contempt.

I just love it when a bad thing happens and Christians say god caused it because he was made at someone -- like earthquakes in CA and flooding in NOLA. Are they trying to tell us that they worship a petty, vindictive being who subjects people to pain and suffering because they won't bow down to him? The Christians want him, they can have him.

I can only assume that I've already heard incontrovertible evidence as to why Christ is actually on the boob tube. So in that case, I'd listen to what he's got to say. If he tells the world that the end is nigh and that only the repentant shall join him in eternal paradise, then I will turn off the television and go take a nap.

So faced with the incontrovertible, unambiguous choice of repentance or hell.. you'd choose hell? There's a pretty thick line between honest disbelief and stupidity, and I think you may've just poll-vaulted over it.

So faced with the incontrovertible, unambiguous choice of repentance or hell.. you'd choose hell? There's a pretty thick line between honest disbelief and stupidity, and I think you may've just poll-vaulted over it.
A) You mean "pole-vaulted"; and

B) Nice way to insult someone for not immediately agreeing, rather than try to figure out why they take the view they take.

A) You mean "pole-vaulted"; and

B) Nice way to insult someone for not immediately agreeing, rather than try to figure out why they take the view they take.

It's entirely possible to vault over something using a polling booth if the lever is long enough.

I didn't find it particularly intelligent to wantonly pick an eternity of fire (or pain of some description) over an eternity of.. well, non-fire and non-pain. Not following or not believing in an organized religion because there is no proof for any of their claims (and there is in fact fair proof to the contrary of many of them) is one thing, but to simply run contrary to what should be a forgone choice for any sane individual is quite another.

That's gonna suck for anyone on the toilet.

Gonna suck a lot more for God when people appear before him halfway through their morning crap.

Gonna suck a lot more for God when people appear before him halfway through their morning crap.

Even more for the people who appear behind them.

"Oh, this is just the way I wanted to start Eternity. Thanks a lot."

In the spirit of the "sister" thread asking what Christians would do if Jesus were demonstrably proven to not have existed, I present the following scneario:

You wake up one morning and get out of bed, mouth tasting like carpet and your neck aching from that crummy old pillow you've been meaning to replace since back when there was only one Battlestar Galactica and the most controversial thing to come out of the White House was the fate of a conspicuous blue dress. You stumble out into the kitchen to get the cofeemaker going and you absently hit the 'power' button on your TV remote, wishing for the umpteenth time you'd gotten more than just the basic cable package so you could be watching something worthwhile, other than the network newscast.

At first, you don't notice that there's a press conference on, so you pour your cup of coffee and start debating on whether you can get away with wearing the same pair of pants as yesterday, laundry being tomorrow. Eventually you look at the TV and there's some Government official, making the announcement "Ladies and Gentlemen of the World... We have just learned that Jesus of Nazareth, the actual Son of God and the Christ has returned to the Earth, and would like to make a statement." You dig into your ear to be sure you heard right as the mike is turned over to a fellow with a beard and long brown hair, who clears his throat and begins to speak. You don't even hear the sound of your coffee mug crashing to the floor, fallen from your stunned fingers.

So? To you folks who aren't Christian... (and assuming there is no question of the identity of the individual goving the press conference)

What do you do?

My first act would be to confirm what I was seeing and hearing. The thing is, there's no way to prove that the man on the television is Jesus Christ. If, under controlled scientific experiments, I saw him perform a genuine miracle with no other explanation than divine intervention, then I suppose I would have to believe that it really was Jesus Christ, returned to the Earth, and that I have been living a lie as an atheist. But I wouldn't like it :P

Dude, I'm a christian and I have two problems with this scenario:

1. Jesus was Jewish in lineage and of the line of david therefore he would not be Caucasian.

2. The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus will come in "the twinkling of an eye" therefore one instant u an me will be doing wutever we r doing (if in fact u r saved) and the other instant we will be looking upon God himself and speechless with awe.

Just a couple corrections dude.


Duly noted. Again though, it's all a "what if" anyway.


And one more thing, threads having to do with religion usually end up with everyone angry, they aren't really a good idea on NS. I'm not saying to hide ur faith, but try not to reveal it in a way that will bring out the worst in people.

Good advice.

Sorry, NB, you say that I'm just projecting my "angst" on you, but I think you demonstrate that you are the one projecting, as well as imposing negative characterizations onto me. All I did was lay out for you the thinking of an unbeliever. You asked specifically for responses from unbelievers. Well, what do you think makes a person an unbeliever, aside from the fact that they do not believe what they are told about your religion? Yet, just as I said, rather than simply accept the fact that this is how an unbeliever sees the matter, you arrogantly presume to suggest that I have "angst" and are being otherwise intellectually or emotionally dishonest.


No. I've been thinking a lot about how to reply to you, because I want to be absolutely, 100% perfectly, crystal clear. Now, I mean no offense when I say this but, I believe that you've already made up your mind that I'm nothing but a pushy, arrogant zealot who operates under a double standard. That's the picture you're painting of me. I've tried to clear that up but it seems like anything I type will be interpreted through that prism. At the same time, I know that you've misunderstood my purpose several steps along the way. (Honestly, you have.)

Now, I will refrain from any further attempts at grabbing the moral highground if you will. If you won't meet me halfway in that, well then you miss out, not me, because I'm going to be completely frank in my responses here and you will either accept it at face value or you won't. In any case, I'm not interested in a pissing match.


Are we going to quibble about vocabulary now? I used "argument" in the sense of a premise that is presented, explained, and defended in the context of a debate.


This thread wasn't intended by me to be a debate thread. I created it because there was a 'Question for Christians' thread presenting the (presumably) hypothetical premise that there was some irrefutable premise that said that Jesus had been proven to not have existed. The question: What would a Christian do?

I was intrigued as to what that would look like if reversed.


And frankly, you cannot just invoke the "if you accept the premise" disclaimer to get you off every hook. You did not say anything like, "Well, I want to explain how believers think, and to understand that, we must accept these premises as given." No, you were saying that unbelievers are arrogant and humorous in your view because they don't think in a way which one can only do if one accepts your premises. So you were using your premises to tell us that we are wrong, and to do so in belittling terms.


No. I realize that other posters in this thread may have done something like that, and I realize that there may have been that in other threads, but I did not say this. I am not the person you're painting a picture of here. I said that those who would presume to make moral judgements against a supreme Being were arrogant. I was very clear about this. I never said any such thing about non-Christians in general.


And here we have a condescending little personal dig that has nothing at all to do with the discussion. You know, you have complained in other threads about people attacking Christian beliefs, but I'm starting to wonder just what constitutes an "attack" in your mind. It seems that you get annoyed at the mere existence of people who do not share Christian beliefs, as if you would prefer us to simply never speak around you at all. Well, NB, as Bottle said, if you don't want to hear what unbelievers think, don't ask us what we think. If you're tired of hearing me say I don't believe in your Bible, stop asking me to accept it as a premise for your positions/arguments.


That's not a personal dig. Maybe it's a limitation of this medium of communication but the intent of that remark was to say that 'Yes, I know you don't, you've said so repeatedly, and it's getting old.' I also found it irrelevant to the topic, since you only said it as a response to something that must have appeared to be a push on my part.


I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that you were hoping that in this hypothetical thread, non-believers would pretend to be believers and just accept the whole construct of god and Jesus and the second coming, etc, and not say that they would require proof or answers to their questions before joining the religion?


No. I had no expectations one way or the other (as I stated in an early post in the thread).


In other words, were you hoping that we would all just say, "Oh, if he really did come back, then sure, of course, I'd believe and obey immediately, without the slightest hesitation"?


No. Where do you get this from?


It is the nature of unbelievers to disbelieve, so to expect them not to say, "Well, then I'd want my questions answered to my satisifaction" or even "I wouldn't care" would not be realistic. The unbelievers here have given you honest answers, I think.

Again, I made no such expectation. Look over the thread. The vast majority of replies fall into those categories. Did I attack those? No.


I stand by my statement, as it is based on my reading of your remarks. I decline to back off of it.


You have misread my remarks.


Ignore what points you like.

How would you have me respond to points that are based on an incorrect premise beyond wahat I've already said?

You seem to want me to surrender and concede that all these things you've accused me of are true. They aren't true and I have said so and why. What more should I say? It's like you're demanding that I address all these items as if the underlying assumptions were true, which would be implicit agreement that they were. That would be dishonest on my part.


I did not say you were pushing your beliefs onto people in this thread. I do think you are presuming that your beliefs are factual and you are speaking in not very nice tones to people who relate to the issue differently than you.

Once again, there's no presumption when the entire premise has been stated, ad nauseam, to be hypothetical. If you or anyone else don't like the hypothetical scenario then don't participate.

I'm going to be very blunt here, but it's just to show my perspective, not piss around for the moral highground. You don't use particularly nice tones yourself and have been quite unapologetic about it. Don't start in on me about that.


And I'm pretty sure that this is another example of your arrogance directed against another. You presume that I have "a lot of angst" although you don't know me at all, and I do not believe that I have ever said anything that idicates that I have angst. I believe you are simply negatively characterizing my opinions about your religion as angst, but I wonder what you think I'm feeling angst about. What is it that you think unsettles me so, or fills me with fear or anxiety?


IMHO you've said quite a few things that do. Call it angst, anger, whatever. The point is that you come across as someone who's more interested in the fight than in communication. I've always assumed that you don't mean to, which is why I've continued to respond in an effort to find some common ground. You've mischaracterized nearly every single thing I've said despite my assurances that it wasn't my intention. If you think I'm a liar, and you're that positive that you've understood my posts correctly, then just come out and say it. I won't report you to the mods for flaming. I'd appreciate the candor.


And why should I admit to doing something that I do not think I have done. You say I am misunderstanding you. I notice that you make no effort to explain yourself better. So I am just supposed to take your word for it that I am wrong, just as I am supposed to take your word for it that your understanding of you god is correct?

Actually, I did make several efforts, but if this one here isn't enough, then I think I can comfortably say I did the best I can to get it across.

Not long ago, in a thread, I asked you about what YOU believed in an effort to open up a dialogue. I never once criticized or attacked your replies. That's why I'm so mystified now as to why you keep characterizing me as attacking everyone who doesn't share my belief. I hope you can help me to understand this.

If Jesus did exist and if he had the power to end world hunger, wars, cure incurable diseases and has done zip, zero, nothing, nada about these things after all these years he is not worthy of worship, he is worthy of contempt.

I just love it when a bad thing happens and Christians say god caused it because he was made at someone -- like earthquakes in CA and flooding in NOLA. Are they trying to tell us that they worship a petty, vindictive being who subjects people to pain and suffering because they won't bow down to him? The Christians want him, they can have him.

I do not hold to this view.

A) You mean "pole-vaulted"; and

B) Nice way to insult someone for not immediately agreeing, rather than try to figure out why they take the view they take.

Please tell us. (I'm curious)

I don't know why that would be arrogant, considering such people are acknowledging that omniscience and submitting to it.Yes, but they're judging the deity to be good simply because its a/the deity. The assumption that this must be correct is equally arrogant.

Yes, but they're judging the deity to be good simply because its a/the deity. The assumption that this must be correct is equally arrogant.

I see what you're saying, but that's not the point of view I see it from. Ultimately, it's not about making a judgement call, but rather, deferring to His judgement. The difference is subtle, but important.

I see what you're saying, but that's not the point of view I see it from. Ultimately, it's not about making a judgement call, but rather, deferring to His judgement. The difference is subtle, but important.Not really. Simply deferring to his judgement would include people that think he's a murdering sonovabitch but don't feel like standing up and doing the right thing for fear of being smitten (regardless of whether he really is or isn't a sonubabitch).

So faced with the incontrovertible, unambiguous choice of repentance or hell.. you'd choose hell? There's a pretty thick line between honest disbelief and stupidity, and I think you may've just poll-vaulted over it.

No, thats what I'd do to, and its not stupid.

Why? Because I wouldn't want to spend an eternity with a good fickle and f'ed up enough to throw me into that hell just because I didn't worship him.

Here’s the thing about the whole “I’d sooner go to hell” bit, and it’s something that strikes some as so incredulous and nonsensical, that it’s worth explaining.

Now let’s assume, roughly as the hypothetical states, some being descends from heaven and states “I AM GOD!” or Jesus, or Vishnu, or really whatever it doesn’t really matter.

Furthermore this deity proclaims a set of circumstances. Hell and heaven are real, in heaven you will be treated to endless bliss, for ever and all eternity, whereas in hell one is endlessly subjected to the most horrific tortures, for all eternity.

Then this particular deity states that the only way to get into heaven is to believe that he is, in fact, god, and failure to believe such is punishment in hell.

Now this is in fact a fairly easy condition, I, like most rational people, if I saw something that convinced me that the only reasonable explanation for this particular being (a miracle of some sort perhaps) was that it was, in fact, god, then I’d be pretty set. So if, as the conditions were in the hypothetical, if this entity claiming to be jesus was, without a doubt, verifiably demonstrable to be jesus, I’d fairly well believe that.

However if the condition for entry into heaven was not mere belief, but systematic worship, the whole thing becomes far more muddled. There are many of us out here who will simply state that even if god is proven to exist it doesn’t seem like any entity that can be honestly worshipped, what with the pain and suffering and wars and rape and cancer and bad television programming mucking things up.

That even if god really is god, this isn’t any entity we’d willingly go on one knee for, that god, as far as gods go, is a right and honest bastard. And any claim that we are presumptuous for “judging” god, as you have tried to claim, is likewise not of real importance. Sure god being some great cosmic entity would probably see the situation far more clearly than we do, and know, far better than us, what must and should be done. But that doesn’t mean that god sees the best possible outcome for humanity, better than all others, and decides to walk that line.

God, for all we know, can be a giant cosmic douche, and lacking any information we can’t conclude one way or the other. Instead the hypothetical was phrased half way, we know it’s god, we just haven’t seen any reason to worship god, which has seemed to confuse a great many people who seem to cling to the notion of “of COURSE you worship him, he’s god!” ignoring the fact that while we’ve established he’s god, this does nothing to alleviate the inclination that many feel, that god is just a great big douche.

Which leads some to say “well anyone would worship anyway, because they don’t want to burn in eternal hell”. Which, of course, is half true. Being rational, pain averse (especially the eternal kind) people we are, we may well try to fake it. We might go through the motions and fill our conversation with “of course lord” this and “no lord” that and “whatever you say lord” and “I’m not worthy”, but we probably wouldn’t believe it, given our previously mentioned inclination to believe that god is little more than an overly inflated feminine hygiene product. We may be able to fake it, in order to avoid all the fire and the poking

But then again, we are dealing with god here, and I find it very doubtful that a little subterfuge and false praise will go along way. Likely regardless what we say, he’ll know what we feel, and we can’t really change what we feel. So if regardless of what we do, we can’t change our own feelings, why bother with all the bowing and praising, and just grab the fucker by his ears, spit in his face, and tell him to go bugger off? If the results are to be the same, we may as well get a little self satisfaction in before we get with all the fire and the poking.

Then the other discussion of heaven and hell is that neither are all that different. Just heaven is filled with praise for god, and hell is filled with the absence of god, and other than that they’re pretty much the same thing. Now the problem becomes even more muddled, for us non believes you’ve basically told us that we can try to spend our lives in false praise so that we can then be elevated to an eternity of false praise, the alternative of which is to ignore god, then spend an eternity without god, which, up until the point that god decided to show up, was pretty much what we were doing anyway.

This doesn’t seem like the hardest of choices. Those who want to worship may find great joy in keeping right on doing that, but those of us who have found no particular use for god don’t really think we’ll be all that put out knowing he’s not around anymore.

Now true, you could have phrased the hypothetical so that there is a guy who we know without a doubt is in fact, god, and we also know, for a fact that he really and truly is a great guy and an absolutely wonderful fellow who is the kind of person you’d love to have over to have a beer and watch the game with, and he feels REALLY terrible about all the horrible, nasty things he had to do, but there was absolutely no other choice and it HAD to be done, and that really you know you can worship this fellow because he’s as good as he possibly can be.

You could have phrased it that way to get rid of these silly objections, but then you could have phrased the whole hypothetical as “you wake up in an empty room with a button in front of labeled “press if you want a puppy”, what do you do?”

Sure, you could have phrased it all in such a way where the only reasonable possibility was “sure, I’ll go up to jesus and shake his hand!” if you magically wished away any and all objections, concerns, and problems all atheists, agnostics, non-deists and secularists have with religion, but what would be the point of that? That people, faced with one, clear and obvious correct answer, with no moral ethical or religious objections will chose that answer?

We could have told you that one to begin with

Christianity isn't (meant) to be about self-loathing. Loving one's neighbor and self-sacrifice is about charity, not self punishment. (I know some people see it that way, but I would dispute it.)

I firmly believe in things being meant the way they work out to actually be. So, if Christianity isn't meant to be about self-loathing but mostly turns out to be about self-loathing (want some more voice bites? how about original sin or men's latency towards evil?), then that simply means that Christianity, in truth, was never meant to be about anything else than self-loathing. Unless of course, the people who devised Christianity were idiots who didn't know what they were writing down and teaching and/or didn't consider for one minute what mess they would get us all into.

Now. Love thy neighbor isn't exactly Christian. The verse (Leviticus 19, 18, which is a book from the Jewish Bible) actually says: You shall not exact revenge, but you shall love your neighbor for he is like you (unfortunately usually mis-translated as love your neighbor like yourself). Thereby, G'd demands us to love ourselves (for our naked humanity), then to recognize our neighbor as exactly like us (we're all human), then to love him as well, because there really is no valid reason not too. Nowhere in "Love thy neighbor" does it say that you should sacrifice yourself for anybody. Suicide is the biggest conceivable crime in Judaism. Self-sacrifice is tantamount to abomination. For example: when Jesus tells people in his Sermon on the Mount that they should, when asked for their shirt give their coat as well, he is referring to a Jewish law which expressly forbids a debtor to give a creditor his last garment, the reason of this rule being that he would kill himself by doing so (the nights in Israel were extremely cold, and if it is his last shirt/coat he's giving then he is already homeless and has to sleep in the street). In the Sermon on the Mount, in that second example of the 5th antithesis, Jesus actually asks you to kill yourself. That verse is not even open to interpretation, because it's exactly what he says, and for a Jew to propose or even to condone such a thing is purely and radically evil. Of course, in Christianity such behavior gets equated to self-sacrifice, to enlightenment and great virtue. :confused:

But as I said: Christianity and Judaism simply do not have one common point of view. Not even on "Love thy neighbor". And how could they? Judaism has not one pervasive common point of view, everything is dispositive, open to debate. So it is utterly impossible for Christianity to share that non-existent common point of view. It doesn't exist. :eek:

Not really. Simply deferring to his judgement would include people that think he's a murdering sonovabitch but don't feel like standing up and doing the right thing for fear of being smitten (regardless of whether he really is or isn't a sonubabitch).

But then again, if God can see into your heart.

Here’s the thing about the whole “I’d sooner go to hell” bit, and it’s something that strikes some as so incredulous and nonsensical, that it’s worth explaining.
...
Sure, you could have phrased it all in such a way where the only reasonable possibility was “sure, I’ll go up to jesus and shake his hand!” if you magically wished away any and all objections, concerns, and problems all atheists, agnostics, non-deists and secularists have with religion, but what would be the point of that? That people, faced with one, clear and obvious correct answer, with no moral ethical or religious objections will chose that answer?


You know, you and I haven't always seen eye to eye and it's gotten pretty heated on occasion... But this time I could kiss you. Thanks very much for this reply. I was hoping for this kind of perspective.

I see your point and I appreciate it.

I guess the main reason I created the thread was, like I said earlier, to ask the question of non-Christians that was being asked of Christians, which was essentially: What would you do if the very basis for everything you believe about the world vis a vis religion was kicked over? We often see it asked of the religious but not often of the non-religious, so I wanted to put it out there for the sake of curiosity.

But you did point out the problems that make it a very non-scientific study, as it were, since the premise sort of provokes reactions that may or may not be relevant to the question.

I firmly believe in things being meant the way they work out to actually be. So, if Christianity isn't meant to be about self-loathing but mostly turns out to be about self-loathing (want some more voice bites? how about original sin or men's latency towards evil?), then that simply means that Christianity, in truth, was never meant to be about anything else than self-loathing. Unless of course, the people who devised Christianity were idiots who didn't know what they were writing down and teaching and/or didn't consider for one minute what mess they would get us all into.


I disagree that things work out the way they were meant to. Isn't that what we're always hearing when someone goes on a rant about the evils of Islam? I think the self loathing and all that business came into play during the Dark Ages as a component of control. That was decidedly un-Christian.


Now. Love thy neighbor isn't exactly Christian. The verse (Leviticus 19, 18, which is a book from the Jewish Bible) actually says: You shall not exact revenge, but you shall love your neighbor for he is like you (unfortunately usually mis-translated as love your neighbor like yourself). Thereby, G'd demands us to love ourselves (for our naked humanity), then to recognize our neighbor as exactly like us (we're all human), then to love him as well, because there really is no valid reason not too. Nowhere in "Love thy neighbor" does it say that you should sacrifice yourself for anybody. Suicide is the biggest conceivable crime in Judaism. Self-sacrifice is tantamount to abomination. For example: when Jesus tells people in his Sermon on the Mount that they should, when asked for their shirt give their coat as well, he is referring to a Jewish law which expressly forbids a debtor to give a creditor his last garment, the reason of this rule being that he would kill himself by doing so (the nights in Israel were extremely cold, and if it is his last shirt/coat he's giving then he is already homeless and has to sleep in the street). In the Sermon on the Mount, in that second example of the 5th antithesis, Jesus actually asks you to kill yourself. That verse is not even open to interpretation, because it's exactly what he says, and for a Jew to propose or even to condone such a thing is purely and radically evil. Of course, in Christianity such behavior gets equated to self-sacrifice, to enlightenment and great virtue. :confused:


I'd disagree with that interpretation, but that's a discussion for another thread. Your point is taken, however.


But as I said: Christianity and Judaism simply do not have one common point of view. Not even on "Love thy neighbor". And how could they? Judaism has not one pervasive common point of view, everything is dispositive, open to debate. So it is utterly impossible for Christianity to share that non-existent common point of view. It doesn't exist. :eek:

Noted.

Neo Bretonnia,

I've spend the last hour rereading this thread and it seems to me your original question was simply to vague for me to answer seriously. So, i made a pretty snide remark, then joked around a bit with various posters. It was enjoyable to me, but i apologize for unintentionally annoying you.

I'll answer seriously now.
For me to accept your premise: "There is clear, unarguable proof that this is, in fact, the actual Jezus of Nazareth, son of god" (paraphrased), i would need certain things answered.

-A new 'bible', 1500 years, after the last part was penned down, is simply too long, language and society have changed way too much. The old bible simply can't be applied to modern society.

-An explanation as to why an " all knowing, benevolent" being simply wipes out humanity and a couple of cities in the bible, and why he just lets humanity get on with slaughtering eachother and pretty much every single other thing he put on this planet with impunity.

-A real answer about the afterlife. The vague references in the bible don't give me any reason to actually want an afterlife. Blissfull oblivion seems much better, especially if the afterlife means i can't be with (some of) my friends.

Now, whether or not i will worship god after this press conference of jezus, depends on the answers i'll get.
Obviously, i will accept their existence.


You mentioned in reply to an earlier post of mine that annoyance goes both ways. Obviously this is true, but i don't evangelise my atheism, and i do get to spend 15 minutes at a bus station every day where a group of christians do evangelise. (in a very pushy way too) Even so, I respect peoples opinions enough not to go around kicking the chair out from under them. If you took my post as me wanting to convert you to atheism, i didn't mean it that way. But from my side, religion seems like a very silly idea, and the idea of an almight god seems even sillier. I understand that its very important to you and your way of looking at life is influenced by your religion a lot.

Regards, Hobabwe

*Walks up to man claiming to be Jesus.* Excuse me, sir. Are you Jesus? Yes, you say? I just want to confirm, Jesus Son of God, is that correct?" *Man claiming to be Jesus nods. ASD hands Jesus papers.* You are served.

Allow me to say this to all the atheists you claim that they'd choose eternal damnation over bowing down to a god they consider unworthy of worship:

You
are
lying.

The vast majority of people would bow down to a human ruler - let alone a god - if the alternative was death or suffering. I find it very difficult to believe the NSG has such an unusual concentration of iron-willed, principled heroes.

This is not Sparta.

The vast majority of people would bow down to a human ruler - let alone a god - if the alternative was death or suffering. I find it very difficult to believe the NSG has such an unusual concentration of iron-willed, principled heroes.

As pointed out before, God would know if you are faking it and bowing down not out of genuine worship, but mere fear.

As such, one might as well spit on him if you feel the need. You would go to hell in either case, but at least you would have one happy memory.

Neo Bretonnia,

I've spend the last hour rereading this thread and it seems to me your original question was simply to vague for me to answer seriously. So, i made a pretty snide remark, then joked around a bit with various posters. It was enjoyable to me, but i apologize for unintentionally annoying you.


I appreciate the post. I always warm up to people who are looking to communicate and exchange ideas, and I respect your words. No need to apologize though, none of your remarks came across to me as being mean-spirited so I took no offense.


I'll answer seriously now.
For me to accept your premise: "There is clear, unarguable proof that this is, in fact, the actual Jezus of Nazareth, son of god" (paraphrased), i would need certain things answered.

-A new 'bible', 1500 years, after the last part was penned down, is simply too long, language and society have changed way too much. The old bible simply can't be applied to modern society.


I suspect that if Jesus did return tomorrow, people would instantly start recording it leading to exactly that. Of course, as I'm a Mormon, new Scripture is always an option ;)


-An explanation as to why an " all knowing, benevolent" being simply wipes out humanity and a couple of cities in the bible, and why he just lets humanity get on with slaughtering eachother and pretty much every single other thing he put on this planet with impunity.

-A real answer about the afterlife. The vague references in the bible don't give me any reason to actually want an afterlife. Blissfull oblivion seems much better, especially if the afterlife means i can't be with (some of) my friends.


I'd be right next to you on that. I mean, I have my own theories, but I'd be a fool not to want to hear it from the source.


Now, whether or not i will worship god after this press conference of jezus, depends on the answers i'll get.
Obviously, i will accept their existence.


Fair enough.


You mentioned in reply to an earlier post of mine that annoyance goes both ways. Obviously this is true, but i don't evangelise my atheism, and i do get to spend 15 minutes at a bus station every day where a group of christians do evangelise. (in a very pushy way too)


I'm sorry to hear that. People like that annoy me too because it always seems to me like on some level there's a detatchment fom reality, as if they can't or won't realize that people don't like to be pushed, and that they're actually doing more harm than good.


Even so, I respect peoples opinions enough not to go around kicking the chair out from under them. If you took my post as me wanting to convert you to atheism, i didn't mean it that way. But from my side, religion seems like a very silly idea, and the idea of an almight god seems even sillier. I understand that its very important to you and your way of looking at life is influenced by your religion a lot.

Regards, Hobabwe

I didn't take it that way, but thanks very much for the sentiment. I would absolutely agree that it goes both ways and I actually meant to reply to you to say so, but I got distracted by work ;)

My sister used to be one of those really pushy types, and in her eyes Atheists, Catholics, Mormons, and pretty much everybody else who doesn't subscribe to her flavor of Christianity are all going to burn in hell together. It hurt me to see her come over to mom's to visit and start making mean and callous remarks about the evils of the Catholic church (Mom's Catholic. Our family is a veritable potpourri of religious belief) and so on, then her husband (at the time) would hand me a tract on the evils of Mormonism and off they'd go, absolutely convinced that if Jesus were there, he'd buy them an ice cream cone for their work.

So yeah, I know just how you feel.

Allow me to say this to all the atheists you claim that they'd choose eternal damnation over bowing down to a god they consider unworthy of worship:

You
are
lying.
No, I'm really not. You may not like the idea of someone deciding that your god isn't worthy of worship, but such is life.

The vast majority of people would bow down to a human ruler - let alone a god - if the alternative was death or suffering.
Which is why we now live under the rule of a tyrannical dictator and have no freedom at all.

Oh wait, we don't. Besides, you are in no position to make claims about what any of us would do in such a situation. We're barely in a position to make such claims ourselves.
I find it very difficult to believe the NSG has such an unusual concentration of iron-willed, principled heroes.
We must seem that way compared to people who submit their lives to an entity that may not exist. At least when threatened by an actual human tyrant we would know that we were in real danger. You're being threatened by what? A book?
This is not Sparta.
Sparta?
THIS
IS
MADNESS!
http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/madness_7.jpg
OOOOONE STEP BEYOND! (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=R0sVcWbqpug)

No, I'm really not. You may not like the idea of someone deciding that your god isn't worthy of worship, but such is life.
Actually, I understand that idea very well. You see, I chose my religion carefully, and the first stage of my quest was to narrow down my choices to major world religions and eliminate the possibility of converting to a small sect, because any god who is planning to save only a small group of people and let everyone else die/burn in hell/whatever is not a god worthy of worship.

So, believe it or not, I understand where you're coming from. I just doubt that you'd still refuse to convert if God personally asked you to.

Which is why we now live under the rule of a tyrannical dictator and have no freedom at all.

Oh wait, we don't.
Not right now, but most people lived under tyrannical dictators for most of human history.

Besides, you are in no position to make claims about what any of us would do in such a situation. We're barely in a position to make such claims ourselves.
True. You can't really know how you'd react. That was my point, sort of...

We must seem that way compared to people who submit their lives to an entity that may not exist. At least when threatened by an actual human tyrant we would know that we were in real danger. You're being threatened by what? A book?
I'm not threatened by anything. I do not believe out of fear. I believe out of love. But to each his own.

Allow me to say this to all the atheists you claim that they'd choose eternal damnation over bowing down to a god they consider unworthy of worship:

You
are
lying.

The vast majority of people would bow down to a human ruler - let alone a god - if the alternative was death or suffering. I find it very difficult to believe the NSG has such an unusual concentration of iron-willed, principled heroes.

This is not Sparta.

There is a failure of logic here. According to your beliefs, we've already chosen eternal damnation, so an immediate change of heart due to a change in data isn't going to change that. As for bowing down to a human leader if the alternative is death or suffering, please, history teaches us, if nothing else, that it doesn't matter what we do, death and suffering follow. Ask the followers of Stalin and Hitler whether following therm was "safe." And before you ask if I dare to draw a parallel between God and the two most reprehensible modern tyranno-terrorists ever, yes I do. The history of your nasty, petty, vicious, malicious, vindictive God is a history of misery and human suffering - basically he says believe in me and you suffer, don't believe in me and you suffer - what bs!

In respone to the origanal question to this topic.

Well I would meet the guy, maybe have a few drinks and discus the nature of reality. :p (I am not a Christian but an Atheist)

Also even if he was proven to be Jesus (Any theories how?) that still does not prove that God exists or that he is the son of the God. Also I think he would feel uncomfortable in a Church all those things to remind him of his painful crucification (If where hanged and came back to life would you like to see people walking around with nooses around their necks?)

Another question: What would you do if Mohammad came back, would you say that proves that Islam is true? Would you like to meet him? I would. ;)

I didn't take it that way, but thanks very much for the sentiment. I would absolutely agree that it goes both ways and I actually meant to reply to you to say so, but I got distracted by work ;)

My sister used to be one of those really pushy types, and in her eyes Atheists, Catholics, Mormons, and pretty much everybody else who doesn't subscribe to her flavor of Christianity are all going to burn in hell together. It hurt me to see her come over to mom's to visit and start making mean and callous remarks about the evils of the Catholic church (Mom's Catholic. Our family is a veritable potpourri of religious belief) and so on, then her husband (at the time) would hand me a tract on the evils of Mormonism and off they'd go, absolutely convinced that if Jesus were there, he'd buy them an ice cream cone for their work.

So yeah, I know just how you feel.

Bleh, family shouldn't do that to eachother.


I'm sorry to hear that. People like that annoy me too because it always seems to me like on some level there's a detatchment fom reality, as if they can't or won't realize that people don't like to be pushed, and that they're actually doing more harm than good.

If i recall correctly, you play Games Workshop games, so you'll apreciate my answer to these annoyances. ;)

One sunny morning this august, i was actually awake enough to think before getting on my first bus (rare, what with me being a night person). So i took an important book with me that morning. When i was standing at the bus station waiting for my transfer, the evangelist came up to me once again. So i pull out my trump card, and show them my "holy book" : Liber Chaotica: Khorne. I then proceeded to try to convince the (quite white nosed by then) woman that she should give up her hopeless "love and peace" religion, and instead turn to the worship of the one most powerfull of deities: The God of Blood: Khorne.
She actually ran when i shouted:" Blood for the Blood god"

They left me alone for two whole blissfull months after that. Some others showed up though, and i really cant be arsed to put down another khorne act that early in the morning...maybe in march though.


Now, if i remembered incorrectly (and for everyone who doesn't play GW games).
They publish a fantasy and a scifi game universe called Warhammer. In this universe both good and evil deities exist. The baddest of the evil deities is khorne, lord of battles, master of slaughter, the blood god. His followers are berserkers in the style of the norse, not caring whether they kill or are killed, because khorne doesnt care from where the blood flows.

Nope I wouldn't want to talk to a child raper.

Not even to hear his explanation ?
I would at least give him a chance. WHo knows - maybe God ordered him to do it. Maybe Aisha would have been taken away and tortured if he did not consummate the marriage. Or maybe he is indeed a sick perv.

Like Jesus - let them speak. Then judge.

In respone to the origanal question to this topic.

Well I would meet the guy, maybe have a few drinks and discus the nature of reality. :p (I am not a Christian but an Atheist)

Also even if he was proven to be Jesus (Any theories how?) that still does not prove that God exists or that he is the son of the God. Also I think he would feel uncomfortable in a Church all those things to remind him of his painful crucification (If where hanged and came back to life would you like to see people walking around with nooses around their necks?)

Another question: What would you do if Mohammad came back, would you say that proves that Islam is true? Would you like to meet him? I would. ;)

Nope I wouldn't want to talk to a child raper.

Another question: What would you do if Mohammad came back, would you say that proves that Islam is true? Would you like to meet him? I would. ;)

You know, I was thinking of starting yet another thread asking exactly that, because after all, fair is fair...

My answer: I'd be in shock. After that, I honestly have no idea.


If i recall correctly, you play Games Workshop games, so you'll apreciate my answer to these annoyances. ;)

<asnip>
She actually ran when i shouted:" Blood for the Blood god"

They left me alone for two whole blissfull months after that. Some others showed up though, and i really cant be arsed to put down another khorne act that early in the morning...maybe in march though.


You recall correctly, and YOU ROCK!


Now, if i remembered incorrectly (and for everyone who doesn't play GW games).
They publish a fantasy and a scifi game universe called Warhammer. In this universe both good and evil deities exist. The baddest of the evil deities is khorne, lord of battles, master of slaughter, the blood god. His followers are berserkers in the style of the norse, not caring whether they kill or are killed, because khorne doesnt care from where the blood flows.

Just this last Saturday my Bretonnians got pwned by my opponent who was playing that exact faction...

There is a failure of logic here. According to your beliefs, we've already chosen eternal damnation...
No you haven't. Clearly you don't know my beliefs. I am certainly no Calvinist.

Your choice is not final until you die.

As for bowing down to a human leader if the alternative is death or suffering, please, history teaches us, if nothing else, that it doesn't matter what we do, death and suffering follow. Ask the followers of Stalin and Hitler whether following him was "safe."
Actually, following Stalin was safe, and the only reason why following Hitler wasn't safe was because he eventually lost the war.

And before you ask if I dare to draw a parallel between God and the two most reprehensible modern tyranno-terrorists ever, yes I do.
I really wish more people would remember Leopold II and the Congo Free State. He was a mass murderer and "tyranno-terrorist" on the same level as Hitler and Stalin, but doesn't get as much recognition because he only killed black people...

Anyway, that's off topic.

The history of your nasty, petty, vicious, malicious, vindictive God is a history of misery and human suffering - basically he says believe in me and you suffer, don't believe in me and you suffer - what bs!
Thank you for completely and utterly ignoring the message of Jesus. You're in good company. Have a seat next to those Inquisitors and Crusaders over there.

Nope I wouldn't want to talk to a child raper.

By today's standards, it's not right. However, consider the year of the man's existence. It wasn't uncommon nor unheard of. There are still cultures today that practice this kind of thing,. even if they have slipped beneath our radar.

By today's standards, it's not right. However, consider the year of the man's existence. It wasn't uncommon nor unheard of. There are still cultures today that practice this kind of thing,. even if they have slipped beneath our radar.

I would not want to associate or talk to THOSE people either, so it's not double standards.

I would not want to associate or talk to THOSE people either, so it's not double standards.

Considering that it's widely assumed that Mary wasn't that much older when she got pregnant with Jesus...

One sunny morning this august, i was actually awake enough to think before getting on my first bus (rare, what with me being a night person). So i took an important book with me that morning. When i was standing at the bus station waiting for my transfer, the evangelist came up to me once again. So i pull out my trump card, and show them my "holy book" : Liber Chaotica: Khorne. I then proceeded to try to convince the (quite white nosed by then) woman that she should give up her hopeless "love and peace" religion, and instead turn to the worship of the one most powerfull of deities: The God of Blood: Khorne.
She actually ran when i shouted:" Blood for the Blood god"
That is BRILLIANT! I'm with Neo Bretonnia on this one - you rock.

The only thing that could beat that was if some other guy standing next to you started preaching about the Emperor's Light, threatening you with damnation for being a heretic, and yelling "Burn the heretic! Kill the mutant! Purge the unclean!"

Actually, I understand that idea very well. You see, I chose my religion carefully, and the first stage of my quest was to narrow down my choices to major world religions and eliminate the possibility of converting to a small sect, because any god who is planning to save only a small group of people and let everyone else die/burn in hell/whatever is not a god worthy of worship.
A god who would let anyone die or burn in hell or whatever is not worthy of worship, in my opinion. In fact, I don't think any god of any kind would be worthy of worship. Respect or gratitude, perhaps, but worship is a whole other story.

So, believe it or not, I understand where you're coming from. I just doubt that you'd still refuse to convert if God personally asked you to.
Until he does I can't say for sure what I'd do, but I like to think I could get out some memorable final words before God stepped on me or whatever.


Not right now, but most people lived under tyrannical dictators for most of human history.
And ultimately rebelled against them. I'm confident that this would be true if God were to install himself as a tyrannical ruler.


True. You can't really know how you'd react. That was my point, sort of...
But you said that we were lying. Seemed a lot more like your point was that you think we were lying.


I'm not threatened by anything. I do not believe out of fear. I believe out of love. But to each his own.
And which do you think your god wants? Worship or belief?


Oh, and
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

Considering that it's widely assumed that Mary wasn't that much older when she got pregnant with Jesus...
"Widely assumed?" By whom?

"Widely assumed?" By whom?

Check the other topic. Mary is generally assumed by scholars to have been 11-14. Which in those times was quite a normal age to marry for a girl.

And ultimately rebelled against them. I'm confident that this would be true if God were to install himself as a tyrannical ruler.
If you'll remember, the last rebellion against God didn't go so well. And those particular rebels were angels, not humans.

But at least it's refreshing to hear an atheist openly admit that if Christianity was true, he'd be on Lucifer's side.

But you said that we were lying. Seemed a lot more like your point was that you think we were lying.
Yes, anyone who says they know for sure what they'd do in such a situation is very likely lying - possibly to themselves as much as to everyone else.

And which do you think your god wants? Worship or belief?
Both. But most of all he wants love, altruism and compassion. Belief is only a means to achieve those things, and worship is only a means to express them.

If you'll remember, the last rebellion against God didn't go so well. And those particular rebels were angels, not humans.

But we have Lord Asriel now ;)

We could have dressed a guy in tinfoil to talk about the C'Tan!

Khaine's going to have you all for dinner anyway.

The only thing that could beat that was if some other guy standing next to you started preaching about the Emperor's Light, threatening you with damnation for being a heretic, and yelling "Burn the heretic! Kill the mutant! Purge the unclean!"

We could have dressed a guy in tinfoil to talk about the C'Tan!

We could have dressed a guy in tinfoil to talk about the C'Tan!

I thought about bringing Slaanesh, but Khorne is so much the popular image of the devil, i thought it would be better. (theyre not that atractive either, so trying to make a pass in true slaanesh fashion is way beyond my acting ability) And the Libers have so much better art for that purpose than codices ;)

And as to muhamed reapearing, see my serious response to NeoB and replace jezus with muhamed.

If you'll remember, the last rebellion against God didn't go so well. And those particular rebels were angels, not humans.
Freedom is still a worthy cause to fight for, even if it is against a god.

But at least it's refreshing to hear an atheist openly admit that if Christianity was true, he'd be on Lucifer's side.
No, I'd be on the human's side if God were to install himself as a dictator. If he keeps on leaving us to our own devices then I'll be happy to just dislike the idea of him and not believe in him.


Yes, anyone who says they know for sure what they'd do in such a situation is very likely lying - possibly to themselves as much as to everyone else.
It's not lying to say what you would want to do, or what you think you'd do.


Both.
How egotistical. He created a sentient species just so they'd worship and love him. I can't imagine the inadequacy issues one would have to have to do something like that.
But most of all he wants love, altruism and compassion. Belief is only a means to achieve those things, and worship is only a means to express them.
Maybe if he wasn't such a bastard more people would love him?

I thought about bringing Slaanesh, but Khorne is so much the popular image of the devil, i thought it would be better. (theyre not that atractive either, so trying to make a pass in true slaanesh fashion is way beyond my acting ability) And the Libers have so much better art for that purpose than codices ;)

It's easy to act the part of a khorne follower. If it moves, kill it. Slaanesh requires a special level of depravity that it would be hard for any normal person to pull off...

Some friends and I have joked one day of getting four of us together, rent a hotel room and a video camera, and make a little video, the premise of which is that every few thousand years, the chaos gods take mortal form and hang out for an evening, just to catch up. This year they have selected a motel in New Jersey.

Slaanesh would be off camera for most of the video, in the bathroom, from which strange sounds of extacy, pain, and farm animals occassionally issues forth

It's easy to act the part of a khorne follower. If it moves, kill it. Slaanesh requires a special level of depravity that it would be hard for any normal person to pull off...

Some friends and I have joked one day of getting four of us together, rent a hotel room and a video camera, and make a little video, the premise of which is that every few thousand years, the chaos gods take mortal form and hang out for an evening, just to catch up. This year they have selected a motel in New Jersey.

Slaanesh would be off camera for most of the video, in the bathroom, from which strange sounds of extacy, pain, and farm animals occassionally issues forth

i'd watch it :)

do please remember this is at about 7:15 in the morning, with me on only 1 cup of coffee. anything with only 1 number in the hours (24 hour clock) is night. i shouldnt have to get out of bed in the night !

It's easy to act the part of a khorne follower. If it moves, kill it. Slaanesh requires a special level of depravity that it would be hard for any normal person to pull off...

Some friends and I have joked one day of getting four of us together, rent a hotel room and a video camera, and make a little video, the premise of which is that every few thousand years, the chaos gods take mortal form and hang out for an evening, just to catch up. This year they have selected a motel in New Jersey.

Slaanesh would be off camera for most of the video, in the bathroom, from which strange sounds of extacy, pain, and farm animals occassionally issues forth

IIRC that's the deity behind one of the Dark Elf sects... The one that drives Morathi to get her luvins' on with her own son...

I would laugh as he casts the capitalist pigs and heads of state into the fires of hell.

Unfortunately this won't happen.....

IIRC that's the deity behind one of the Dark Elf sects... The one that drives Morathi to get her luvins' on with her own son...

Yes, the "cult of slaanesh". Slaanesh is Slaanesh in both game systems (same with all the chaos gods actually).

I'd disagree with that interpretation, but that's a discussion for another thread. Your point is taken, however.

Sorry, I wasn't planning to hijack your thread. Thank you for listening! This is by far the most civil and least personally offensive, polemicizing thread concerning religion that I've ever been in, so kudos! :)

Yes, the "cult of slaanesh". Slaanesh is Slaanesh in both game systems (same with all the chaos gods actually).

Well, to be fair, Slaanesh in 40k isn't a goddess of the Dark Eldar. The Dark Eldar are, on their own, crazy sadistic bastards.

See, the fact that I wasn't 100% sure is evidence that I haven't played my Dark Elves in too long a time!

By the way, since you are quite possibly the only dark elf player left on the planet, Games Workshop urgently requests you go buy more overpriced metal shit.

By the way, since you are quite possibly the only dark elf player left on the planet, Games Workshop urgently requests you go buy more overpriced metal shit.

Who the hell plays Warhammer Fantasy nowadays anyway.

Wimps just don't want to get shot full of bolts.

Yes, the "cult of slaanesh". Slaanesh is Slaanesh in both game systems (same with all the chaos gods actually).

See, the fact that I wasn't 100% sure is evidence that I haven't played my Dark Elves in too long a time!

Sorry, I wasn't planning to hijack your thread. Thank you for listening! This is by far the most civil and least personally offensive, polemicizing thread concerning religion that I've ever been in, so kudos! :)

You should have seen it earlier this morning! :p

Well, to be fair, Slaanesh in 40k isn't a goddess of the Dark Eldar. The Dark Eldar are, on their own, crazy sadistic bastards.

ooooh yes he is. It's the eldar's own intrinsic hedonism, violence and depravity that gave birth to Slaanesh (and killed off about 98% of the eldar population in the process) in the first place.

The eldar's tendancy to be "crazy sadistic bastards" is the very thing that created slaanesh in the first place.

ooooh yes he is. It's the eldar's own intrinsic hedonism, violence and depravity that gave birth to Slaanesh (and killed off about 98% of the eldar population in the process) in the first place.

The eldar's tendancy to be "crazy sadistic bastards" is the very thing that created slaanesh in the first place.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the Dark Eldar worship Slaanesh. If anything the Dark Eldar fear Slaanesh just as much as the rest of the Eldar. After all, who wants to get their soul eaten by a big, depraved monstrosity born of psychic energy.

Incidentally, you still haven't made that account and signed up to the Spycraft game.

I would simply change channels to some old rerun of happy days or something

It's easy to act the part of a khorne follower. If it moves, kill it. Slaanesh requires a special level of depravity that it would be hard for any normal person to pull off...

Some friends and I have joked one day of getting four of us together, rent a hotel room and a video camera, and make a little video, the premise of which is that every few thousand years, the chaos gods take mortal form and hang out for an evening, just to catch up. This year they have selected a motel in New Jersey.

Slaanesh would be off camera for most of the video, in the bathroom, from which strange sounds of extacy, pain, and farm animals occassionally issues forth

Oh man, put it on youtube. Imagine the lulz!

By the way, since you are quite possibly the only dark elf player left on the planet, Games Workshop urgently requests you go buy more overpriced metal shit.

Yeah no kidding... I asked once why there was no Battalion Box for DEs and it was because not enough plastic models exist to build one from. AFAIK Warriors are the only ones that come in plastic.

Who the hell plays Warhammer Fantasy nowadays anyway.

Wimps just don't want to get shot full of bolts.

HAH I play BOTH. Bolts of magic bolts of lead make no difference. RAWR!

At the risk of actually getting back on topic:



I guess the main reason I created the thread was, like I said earlier, to ask the question of non-Christians that was being asked of Christians, which was essentially: What would you do if the very basis for everything you believe about the world vis a vis religion was kicked over? We often see it asked of the religious but not often of the non-religious, so I wanted to put it out there for the sake of curiosity.

Well the problem is, to me, that it's a rather simple question. Yes, I have my beliefs, so do you. But I, and I assume you too, as rational human beings, are capable of at least admitting we could be wrong, and accept the possibility that we would be proven wrong.

So what would I do if my beliefs were incontrovertedly proven false? I'd change my beliefs, of course. That's what rational people do. I don't believe in Jesus Christ, but I would if he happened to show up and prove to me that this was who he was.

It's entirely possible to vault over something using a polling booth if the lever is long enough.

I didn't find it particularly intelligent to wantonly pick an eternity of fire (or pain of some description) over an eternity of.. well, non-fire and non-pain. Not following or not believing in an organized religion because there is no proof for any of their claims (and there is in fact fair proof to the contrary of many of them) is one thing, but to simply run contrary to what should be a forgone choice for any sane individual is quite another.

Explaining why you chose to be dismissive and insulting does not make me respect your dismissive and insulting response to him any more than before. If you had asked him why he said that, and if he had given you a stupid explanation, then you might feel free to call it that. But you didn't. Oh, well.

<snip>

Not long ago, in a thread, I asked you about what YOU believed in an effort to open up a dialogue. I never once criticized or attacked your replies. That's why I'm so mystified now as to why you keep characterizing me as attacking everyone who doesn't share my belief. I hope you can help me to understand this.
I'm not going to go through point by point because I agree with you that a side argument between us will accomplish nothing. You are missing the points I have been making and you are also completely wrong about my motivations. You say the same thing about me. It is clear that neither one of us is buying the other's explanations. Apparently, there is a seed of mistrust between us. I'm not sure why -- maybe it got planted in some other thread, but I can't place it. Let's just say that, while we may not be enemies per se, we are not friends, either. I think it would be better if we took more time to observe each other before going further with our opinions of each other.

As for a thread in which you asked me what I believe in an effort to open a dialogue, I don't remember you doing that. I do remember getting into an argument with you about whether NSG is more or less anti-Christian, but that is not the same thing, imo. In any event, I have talked about what I believe here. You may use that information for whatever you like, if you like.

I'd figure I didn't sleep enough to sober up...and I'd keep living exactly the same way...

I do not hold to this view.



Please tell us. (I'm curious)

Please tell you what?

I'd listen to the guy, see what he has to say. If I liked it, I'd follow him. If I didn't, I wouldn't.

In the spirit of the "sister" thread asking what Christians would do if Jesus were demonstrably proven to not have existed, I present the following scneario:

You wake up one morning and get out of bed, mouth tasting like carpet and your neck aching from that crummy old pillow you've been meaning to replace since back when there was only one Battlestar Galactica and the most controversial thing to come out of the White House was the fate of a conspicuous blue dress. You stumble out into the kitchen to get the cofeemaker going and you absently hit the 'power' button on your TV remote, wishing for the umpteenth time you'd gotten more than just the basic cable package so you could be watching something worthwhile, other than the network newscast.

At first, you don't notice that there's a press conference on, so you pour your cup of coffee and start debating on whether you can get away with wearing the same pair of pants as yesterday, laundry being tomorrow. Eventually you look at the TV and there's some Government official, making the announcement "Ladies and Gentlemen of the World... We have just learned that Jesus of Nazareth, the actual Son of God and the Christ has returned to the Earth, and would like to make a statement." You dig into your ear to be sure you heard right as the mike is turned over to a fellow with a beard and long brown hair, who clears his throat and begins to speak. You don't even hear the sound of your coffee mug crashing to the floor, fallen from your stunned fingers.

So? To you folks who aren't Christian... (and assuming there is no question of the identity of the individual goving the press conference)

What do you do?

I would groan "Not another one" and change channel. :gundge:

Actually, I understand that idea very well. You see, I chose my religion carefully, and the first stage of my quest was to narrow down my choices to major world religions and eliminate the possibility of converting to a small sect, because any god who is planning to save only a small group of people and let everyone else die/burn in hell/whatever is not a god worthy of worship.

So, believe it or not, I understand where you're coming from. I just doubt that you'd still refuse to convert if God personally asked you to.

<snip>
All right, let me offer you a variant example in myself:

I do not know if your god is real or not, but I am perfectly willing to believe that he is. I will confidently stipulate right now to the existence of Jesus, and I'll go further and accept, on principle, the premise of all his miracles, resurrection, etc.

I still do not worship Jesus and/or your god.

Why? Because I do not need what they offer. Also, I do not have confidence in their followers (you) and the set of rituals they have created for Christians to practice. I see absolutely no value of any kind in all the restrictive lifestyle rules, and the "sin" concept makes no sense to me at all. To be completely honest, when I think of the modern monotheist religions, I sometimes feel sorry for the God of Abraham because I don't really see what all these religions and rituals have to do with him. But that's probably just because I don't get the connection; it's not the sort of thing I look for in a religion.

But the point is, that if your god were to appear on earth and personally ask me to worship him, I think I would have to politely decline. I mean decline to get wholeheartedly into the Christian program and reject everything else I believe in. It's just not me, and I really do need what other gods are in charge of a lot more than what your god is in charge of.

I'm serious here. I'm not just copping an attitude. I am a person with a somewhat different mindset about what religion is and what it is for, and because of that, even having a personal vision of a god is not enough to guarantee that I will worship that god.

This is what I meant in my original answer to the OP that I would assume that Jesus's press conference has nothing to do with me, but will affect only Christians and be important only to Christians.

All right, let me offer you a variant example in myself:

I do not know if your god is real or not, but I am perfectly willing to believe that he is. I will confidently stipulate right now to the existence of Jesus, and I'll go further and accept, on principle, the premise of all his miracles, resurrection, etc.

I still do not worship Jesus and/or your god.

Why? Because I do not need what they offer.

That's not necessarily true. While I obviously cannot prove to you that you DO need it, I also cannot prove to you that you need anything else in life, necessarily.

Most atheists will turn that back on me with a metaphor to this extent: A car salesman will always tell you that you need to buy a new car.

The message is quite clear, but there's a contradiction. The car salesman obviously profits from this. But does God?

Also, no human being on the face of the Earth knows exactly what they need.

You may not believe that you need God, or to worship Him. But I believe that every man does. Whether they see a benefit in this world from it or not.

Also, I do not have confidence in their followers (you) and the set of rituals they have created for Christians to practice. I see absolutely no value of any kind in all the restrictive lifestyle rules, and the "sin" concept makes no sense to me at all. To be completely honest, when I think of the modern monotheist religions, I sometimes feel sorry for the God of Abraham because I don't really see what all these religions and rituals have to do with him. But that's probably just because I don't get the connection; it's not the sort of thing I look for in a religion.

Neither did Christ. The entire New Testament is riddled with parables, traps, and the constant butting of heads between Jesus and the Pharisees. And He had a good reason for doing it, too. They were wrapped up in their rituals, teachings, and BS, and never realized how SIMPLE their faith had to be. And I think it's utterly SAD that the Catholic Church (I speak of all Christians, not the Roman Catholics) has continually ignored that basic premise. I'm a proud Lutheran, and I love my church, but even WE wrap ourselves around a whole bunch of ritual and BS. Martin Luther had it right, long ago. The important thing about Christianity is SIMPLE.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

I continually find it OFFENSIVE as to how STUPID so many Christians think God is. He wants as many people as possible to receive the salvation He gave long ago. To that effect, how can anyone possibly believe that He would make salvation so utterly convoluted? To believe that, is to believe that the mentally retarded are eternally damned. And I would demand the excommunication of any member of my church who would make such a bold, stupid, and outlandish statement.

Again, I realize this does not butt heads with your beliefs. And I sincerely apologize for that. Rather, I want you to understand that I can see your viewpoint. And it makes me very very angry that we as Christians have nobody to blame but ourselves, for that viewpoint. Two thousand years can blur a message quite a bit, but you'd hope that such a SIMPLE message would be easier to maintain.

I wish I could say, "Hey, you don't know what you're talking about." But you do. Rather, you just have a poor interpretation of what our religion is about. And you're not alone, and it isn't just just non-Christians who have that poor interpretation.

But the point is, that if your god were to appear on earth and personally ask me to worship him, I think I would have to politely decline. I mean decline to get wholeheartedly into the Christian program and reject everything else I believe in. It's just not me, and I really do need what other gods are in charge of a lot more than what your god is in charge of.

I'm serious here. I'm not just copping an attitude. I am a person with a somewhat different mindset about what religion is and what it is for, and because of that, even having a personal vision of a god is not enough to guarantee that I will worship that god.

Then I don't think you understand how powerful God really is, how much He listens, or what He wants for us. I believe that He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. And I also believe that He hears all prayers. As a result, I cannot, without recanting my beliefs, say that anything is above or below him.

Whatever your mindset is of what religion is and what it is for, I can assure you that God can definitely fill that role. The problem, which you'll undoubtedly struggle with, and obviously currently do, is that He wants to be more than that.

This is what I meant in my original answer to the OP that I would assume that Jesus's press conference has nothing to do with me, but will affect only Christians and be important only to Christians.

Well, the scenario is a little buggy, to say the least. Should Christ appear again before a rapture, there's no telling what He would say, so I can't agree with you there. It definitely conflicts with His telling of events, and John's vision.

*snip*
That's very interesting, and your position is definitely one that I respect. It's also one that I wish to find out more about, because it intrigues me. What is your mindset about what religion is and what it is for?

That's very interesting, and your position is definitely one that I respect. It's also one that I wish to find out more about, because it intrigues me. What is your mindset about what religion is and what it is for?
I've kind of already talked about as much about my own religious beliefs as I feel comfortable doing in this thread, but okay, in brief:

Here is what I've already said about it so far, in answer to Deus Malum:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13354278&postcount=171

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13355157&postcount=256

With those comments in mind, and in direct answer to your question, religion, to me, is a practical matter that is about living in the world. I believe in spirits and gods, and I believe they function rather similarly to the way people function. We all share the world together and have to work either with, around, or against each other. Harmonious relations among all spirits (including the spirits of people) is the most desireable thing because it makes life easier and happier for everyone. Ease and happiness and the ability to enjoy the experiences of life are, in my belief, the main point of life in this world, which is so full of the ingredients of happiness, and so much of which is at least partially within our control -- physically, psychologically, and/or spiritually.

So, personally, I need religion to help me maintain harmony and balance with the beings I can't see, just as I do with the beings I can see. This would include mostly spirits of things that are active around me in my daily life -- practical things like housing, food, weather, health, money, career, etc. I'm not a mystic, so I don't have much to do with cosmic spirits/gods.

Sparta?
THIS
IS
MADNESS!
http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/madness_7.jpg
OOOOONE STEP BEYOND! (http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=R0sVcWbqpug)

Quality.

Now a real blast would be people's reactions if Jesus came out as being gay himself.

In the spirit of the "sister" thread asking what Christians would do if Jesus were demonstrably proven to not have existed, I present the following scneario:

You wake up one morning and get out of bed, mouth tasting like carpet and your neck aching from that crummy old pillow you've been meaning to replace since back when there was only one Battlestar Galactica and the most controversial thing to come out of the White House was the fate of a conspicuous blue dress. You stumble out into the kitchen to get the cofeemaker going and you absently hit the 'power' button on your TV remote, wishing for the umpteenth time you'd gotten more than just the basic cable package so you could be watching something worthwhile, other than the network newscast.

At first, you don't notice that there's a press conference on, so you pour your cup of coffee and start debating on whether you can get away with wearing the same pair of pants as yesterday, laundry being tomorrow. Eventually you look at the TV and there's some Government official, making the announcement "Ladies and Gentlemen of the World... We have just learned that Jesus of Nazareth, the actual Son of God and the Christ has returned to the Earth, and would like to make a statement." You dig into your ear to be sure you heard right as the mike is turned over to a fellow with a beard and long brown hair, who clears his throat and begins to speak. You don't even hear the sound of your coffee mug crashing to the floor, fallen from your stunned fingers.

So? To you folks who aren't Christian... (and assuming there is no question of the identity of the individual goving the press conference)

What do you do?

Get a coat and jump off a bridge 'cause Hell just froze over.

I do nothing. I keep living my life the way I want to regardless of what anyone says or thinks, doing what I believe to be right.

I'd roll back over on my crummy old pillow (which, by the way, far proceeds any debate over a stained blue dress- I more likely aquired it about the time Carter was getting an ulcer over a handfull of Americans being held in Iran), because I'd surely still be in bed having another weird dream.

short answer:

If he states god is the typical all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent unchanging god christians claim,... I ignore him at best, consider him as evil at worst.

long answer:
Not worth my time, demonstrative evidence for gods - nil, demonstrative evidence against gods - more than nil.

For our part, as humans, if we accept the premise that God is real and is who He says He is

...and for what he says, unless he's a liar.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. —Isaiah 45:7

Please tell you what?
How to dig these "indigenous species of Ceti Alpha V" out of my ear before it gets any worse.

I'd roll back over on my crummy old pillow (which, by the way, far proceeds any debate over a stained blue dress- I more likely aquired it about the time Carter was getting an ulcer over a handfull of Americans being held in Iran), because I'd surely still be in bed having another weird dream.


Poor Jimmy.

He was the last Non-Douchebag elected into office.

OIC. This religion stuff is complicated. So are you omnipotent? Or do people just do what you say cos of the sex thing?

:D

Let's say there are people out there who do believe me omnipotent in my special fields ... pray to me and find out. ;)

:D

Let's say there are people out there who do believe me omnipotent in my special fields ... pray to me and find out. ;)

Oh, Cabra West, who art in Germany, Cabra West be thy name...

I would like money.
Lots of money.


OH! and sex, lots and lots of sex. With lots of women who are so hot they wouldnt otherwise give me the time of day, without divine intervention.

-Amen.

Oh, Cabra West, who art in Germany, Cabra West be thy name...

I would like money.
Lots of money.


OH! and sex, lots and lots of sex. With lots of women who are so hot they wouldnt otherwise give me the time of day, without divine intervention.

-Amen.

I'm in Ireland, hon.
And I don't deal in money. I believe mixing money and choclate or money and sex will lead to quite a mess.

The sex can be arranged, though... go out and talk to lots of women, and be nice to them, and your prayers shall be answered. :D

Wait for proof.

I'm in Ireland, hon.
And I don't deal in money. I believe mixing money and choclate or money and sex will lead to quite a mess.

So what if we legalize prostitution, but change the currency to chocolate foil-wrapped coins?

The sex can be arranged, though... go out and talk to lots of women, and be nice to them, and your prayers shall be answered. :D[/QUOTE]

Wait...I thought you were from Ireland, but living in Germany.....

I could swear you were writing in der deutchensprachen!

Eine leibe mein hundt!

*goosesteps to the bathroom*

Please tell you what?

Bah that was supposed to be quoting somebody else but I screwed up building the post. My bad.


As for a thread in which you asked me what I believe in an effort to open a dialogue, I don't remember you doing that. I do remember getting into an argument with you about whether NSG is more or less anti-Christian, but that is not the same thing, imo. In any event, I have talked about what I believe here. You may use that information for whatever you like, if you like.

It was that thread. I have no use for such info, was just curious at the time.

I'm from Germany, living in Ireland ;)


HAH!

I juxtapose thee, knave!

So what if we legalize prostitution, but change the currency to chocolate foil-wrapped coins?

I've nothing against prostitution, but it's not what I would call sex. Well, only in as much as masturbation is sex, or inflatable dolls...
I'll have to consider the proposition if the chocolate coins, I like the idea :D


Wait...I thought you were from Ireland, but living in Germany.....

I could swear you were writing in der deutchensprachen!

Eine leibe mein hundt!

*goosesteps to the bathroom*

I'm from Germany, living in Ireland ;)

HAH!

I juxtapose thee, knave!

Oi! Who're ye calling a knave, ye little bollocks? :p

First of all, I wouldn't drop precious coffee. Second, I imagine it would go a little like this:

Me: Well, I'll be damned. *pours another cup of coffee*

Oi! Who're ye calling a knave, ye little bollocks? :p

Uhh..the only Cockney I know is "Sod off, yeh Bell-End!"

And Im only loosely aware of what it means..:)

Uhh..the only Cockney I know is "Sod off, yeh Bell-End!"

And Im only loosely aware of what it means..:)

Not a "Father Ted" fan, then, I assume? ;)

Oi! Who're ye calling a knave, ye little bollocks? :p

Ahhh now that sounds Irish!

Not a "Father Ted" fan, then, I assume? ;)

Oh, but you'll stay for a cup of tea!

On the contrary, Father Ted is hilarious!
I dont get to watch it much, cuz its on the BBC America.

Oh, but you'll stay for a cup of tea!

On the contrary, Father Ted is hilarious!
I dont get to watch it much, cuz its on the BBC America.

Ah, go on, go on, go on, go on... :D
I believe Bishop Brenan calles Dougal a "little bollocks" on several occasions.

Ah, go on, go on, go on, go on... :D
I believe Bishop Brenan calles Dougal a "little bollocks" on several occasions.

Dougal is my favorite Imported Dumbass.

"Aye Ted, but how do we keep him from saying things like "Feck?"
-Father Dougal.

Heh aldepends on what he has to say. I mean according to the Church by that time it is already too late to repent. I'd wait and hear whether than comes form the big mans mouth or not.

Accordingly then I would hit the floor and start the preying like the sinner I am, or go meh and wonder out to the pub for one last pint and a game of pool.

Its never too late to repent, God is always forgiving;)

Dougal is my favorite Imported Dumbass.

"Aye Ted, but how do we keep him from saying things like "Feck?"
-Father Dougal.

"I decided to call the rabbit Pete Sempress now, Ted. You know, because of the whole rabbit and tennis connection there."

Its never too late to repent, God is always forgiving;)

Cool so the next time I'm accosted by a gleeful hand rubbing Christian, telling me I'm going to hell, I can just call them a liar!

Cool so the next time I'm accosted by a gleeful hand rubbing Christian, telling me I'm going to hell, I can just call them a liar!

He has no right to say you are going to hell, so yes, tell him he is a liar.

That's not necessarily true. While I obviously cannot prove to you that you DO need it, I also cannot prove to you that you need anything else in life, necessarily.
YOUR proofs would be the most irrelevant thing of all. Any salesperson can make an effort to prove to me, or at least convince me, that I need whatever it is they are offering, whether it is a god or a mortgage loan. Only I can know whether I actually do need such a thing.

Most atheists will turn that back on me with a metaphor to this extent: A car salesman will always tell you that you need to buy a new car.
Sigh. The habits of atheists are no doubt interesting. I am not an atheist, and you are not debating with one when you debate with me. You might want to keep that in mind.

The message is quite clear, but there's a contradiction. The car salesman obviously profits from this. But does God?
They both get what they desire. The salesman gets the sale and the commission. Your god gets the behavior from worshippers you say he wants.

Also, no human being on the face of the Earth knows exactly what they need.
Sez you. And I would ask, if humans cannot know what they need, how can they possibly know what other humans need? You say I need this or that. How can you possibly know, and why should I give you any more credence than I give myself? People who push their religions -- evangelists, proselytizers, etc -- are nothing but errand runners, and it is not at all clear who or what they are running errands for.

I should point out that, personally, I do not like the practice of evangelism -- of any religion, of any kind. I find it presumptuous and rude. But that's just me. The reason I mention it is that any time anyone tries to persuade me toward their religion, I immediately react very negatively. So when someone comes along and tells me that I need something I can only get by committing to do what they want me to, even if I don't feel that I need it, that does not tend to get a good reaction from me.

You may not believe that you need God, or to worship Him. But I believe that every man does. Whether they see a benefit in this world from it or not.
I realize that you, and many people, believe that. What I do not understand is why you or any of your fellows think that your belief would have any influence or carry any weight with me.

Neither did Christ. The entire New Testament is riddled with parables, traps, and the constant butting of heads between Jesus and the Pharisees. And He had a good reason for doing it, too. They were wrapped up in their rituals, teachings, and BS, and never realized how SIMPLE their faith had to be. And I think it's utterly SAD that the Catholic Church (I speak of all Christians, not the Roman Catholics) has continually ignored that basic premise. I'm a proud Lutheran, and I love my church, but even WE wrap ourselves around a whole bunch of ritual and BS. Martin Luther had it right, long ago. The important thing about Christianity is SIMPLE.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

I continually find it OFFENSIVE as to how STUPID so many Christians think God is. He wants as many people as possible to receive the salvation He gave long ago. To that effect, how can anyone possibly believe that He would make salvation so utterly convoluted? To believe that, is to believe that the mentally retarded are eternally damned. And I would demand the excommunication of any member of my church who would make such a bold, stupid, and outlandish statement.

Again, I realize this does not butt heads with your beliefs. And I sincerely apologize for that. Rather, I want you to understand that I can see your viewpoint. And it makes me very very angry that we as Christians have nobody to blame but ourselves, for that viewpoint. Two thousand years can blur a message quite a bit, but you'd hope that such a SIMPLE message would be easier to maintain.

I wish I could say, "Hey, you don't know what you're talking about." But you do. Rather, you just have a poor interpretation of what our religion is about. And you're not alone, and it isn't just just non-Christians who have that poor interpretation.
Actually, from reading the above, it sounds like I have a very accurate interpretation of what your religion is -- i.e. off track. If the churches have it all so wrong, why should I listen to their representatives and follow a god they so obviously do not have the least understanding of themselves?

So, by reading your remarks, I remain comfortable in my belief that I do not need to join a Christian religion and that to do so would be a mistake for me.

Then I don't think you understand how powerful God really is, how much He listens, or what He wants for us. I believe that He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. And I also believe that He hears all prayers. As a result, I cannot, without recanting my beliefs, say that anything is above or below him.
1) Again, your beliefs have no meaning or relevance for me. The fact that you believe something is not enough to make me believe it, too.

2) I don't understand why my beliefs cannot be as irrelevant to you as yours are to me. I only stated my beliefs because I was asked to, and I tried to explain why, because of my beliefs, I would mostly likely not react at all to the return of Jesus. But that in no way implies that your beliefs are false, or mine more right than yours. I also specifically stated that I would be willing to stipulate to the total, factual truth of everything you say, yet I am still not joining up for the reasons I gave. You may not think those are good reasons, but I don't think your arguments against them are any good, either, so we're even on that. So why not just say, "OK, I guess I won't be seeing you on the other side," and I'll say, "Bon voyage," and we'll both move on? How's that for a suggestion?

3) Over the years, I have considered the question of the God of Abraham's all-encompassing nature -- omniscience, omnipotence, etc. -- and it led me to the conclusion that once a thing becomes everything, it may as well be nothing. A God like that clearly has no needs that I could fulfill, and it strikes me as the height of ridiculousness for me to gaze up at the totality of all being and ask it to help me get to work on time. So, confident that such a being has its own business in hand, I look to what I do need and what I can do. I'm sorry to say this but, the pastors of my youth did their job too well with this particular unindoctrinated, pagan child. I accept the enormousness of your god and that aspect of him is what creates two conditions:

A) that I do not believe that any of the religions revolving around him nowadays are really about him, or understand him at all, because if they did, they would just stay home; and

B) that I consider such a god to be irrelevant to anyone who is not on a personal, world-renouncing, spiritual path of cloistered meditation upon the absolute.

See, I do not worry about the workings of life, death, fate, the universe, or good and evil. I have complete faith that all of these things are just as they should be. If your god is in charge of such things, then he is doing a fine job and parceling out all to me in good measure and good order. So what need have I to propitiate him, or beg things of him, or try to influence his moods or thoughts, or draw his attention to me?

Whatever your mindset is of what religion is and what it is for, I can assure you that God can definitely fill that role. The problem, which you'll undoubtedly struggle with, and obviously currently do, is that He wants to be more than that.
Another sez you moment. And I note that now you are indeed talking like a salesperson. One size fits all! A thousand and one uses! But wait, there's more!!!

And so we come full circle. I do not struggle with the idea of your god at all. It's his worshippers who get on my nerves.

Now a real blast would be people's reactions if Jesus came out as being gay himself.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm
Did the world just get a little larger, or a little smaller?

Also, no human being on the face of the Earth knows exactly what they need.You apparently are confused 'twixt "need" and "want".

You may not believe that you need God, or to worship Him.I don't, and it's not just about "believing" that i don't. "He"'s made that abundantly clear.
But I believe that every man does.Your belief, got it.
Whether they see a benefit in this world from it or not.It'd have to be this one, since i'm dead ... DEAD, mind you, DEAD ... nonfunctional after life in this world ... unless i hop to another planet or something, which really doesn't seem all that likely.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.Other than when dead, as in at least for three days, which ends the whole "eternal" thing.

I continually find it OFFENSIVE as to how STUPID so many Christians think God is.You should be offended at how bloodthirsty, unjust, infantile and morally bankrupt he should be, but "stupid", that's not as important.
He wants as many people as possible to receive the salvation He gave long ago.Well, not so much.
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
To that effect, how can anyone possibly believe that He would make salvation so utterly convoluted?Because he, himself, IS convoluted?
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Eventually you look at the TV and there's some Government official, making the announcement "Ladies and Gentlemen of the World... We have just learned that Jesus of Nazareth, the actual Son of God and the Christ has returned to the Earth, and would like to make a statement." You dig into your ear to be sure you heard right as the mike is turned over to a fellow with a beard and long brown hair, who clears his throat and begins to speak. You don't even hear the sound of your coffee mug crashing to the floor, fallen from your stunned fingers.

So? To you folks who aren't Christian... (and assuming there is no question of the identity of the individual goving the press conference)

What do you do?

That would be quite an hazardous assumption, and not just because it comes from the White House - even if that would be a dead giveaway.

1.Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of God is stated in the Bible.
2.The Bible claims itself to be God's words.
3.The Bible says that the second coming of Christ will be at the time of the Apocalypse (cfr The Apocalypse).
4.Clearly, Jesus of Nazareth coming to Earth and going to the White House isn't quite what I would call "following the text"

Then, some options (even assuming I'd be a believer)
1.That is NOT Jesus of Nazareth
2.The Bible CANNOT be trusted completely: and if it's false in some statements (like in the second coming of Christ), it could be false even somewhere else, including itself claiming to be God's words - hence totally true; or in the parts where it states that the historical character "Jesus of Nazareth" is the Son of God, etc, etc...

In both cases... religion fails and "God disappears in a puff of logic", iirc D.N.A.'s words.

In the spirit of the "sister" thread asking what Christians would do if Jesus were demonstrably proven to not have existed, I present the following scneario:

You wake up one morning and get out of bed, mouth tasting like carpet and your neck aching from that crummy old pillow you've been meaning to replace since back when there was only one Battlestar Galactica and the most controversial thing to come out of the White House was the fate of a conspicuous blue dress. You stumble out into the kitchen to get the cofeemaker going and you absently hit the 'power' button on your TV remote, wishing for the umpteenth time you'd gotten more than just the basic cable package so you could be watching something worthwhile, other than the network newscast.

At first, you don't notice that there's a press conference on, so you pour your cup of coffee and start debating on whether you can get away with wearing the same pair of pants as yesterday, laundry being tomorrow. Eventually you look at the TV and there's some Government official, making the announcement "Ladies and Gentlemen of the World... We have just learned that Jesus of Nazareth, the actual Son of God and the Christ has returned to the Earth, and would like to make a statement." You dig into your ear to be sure you heard right as the mike is turned over to a fellow with a beard and long brown hair, who clears his throat and begins to speak. You don't even hear the sound of your coffee mug crashing to the floor, fallen from your stunned fingers.

So? To you folks who aren't Christian... (and assuming there is no question of the identity of the individual goving the press conference)

What do you do?

jesus christ would be:
"Bush!, how in the world are the things you do christain?"
and then he would send DMV to hell, and make LG his 1st disciple back one earth,
LG: Pies for everyone! :p *LG pies bush*

OK, if he actually is the Messiah, I'd have to call him immediately, because we're very probably related, and he might be looking for his family. Jews are very family-oriented, you know...:fluffle:


me too your all right ;)

Id go find a Muslim, point, and say HAHA!

*grabs IF's finger and breaks it off*

There are three reactions to the second coming.
1) A mass revival of the faithful, who weren't really that faithful until they had proof (which undermines faith).
2) A mass rejection by the unfaithful who considered Christianity a rather assholish sect to start with.
3) A mass pie-ing by LG.

lets all do NO.3 :gundge:

To believe that, is to believe that the mentally retarded are eternally damned.Maybe not "damned", but it's arguable what "god"'s sight is worth.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
+
Numbers 5:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
5:3 Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.
5:4 And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.

And it makes me very very angry that we as Christians have nobody to blame but ourselves, for that viewpoint. o.0
Agreed.
Two thousand years can blur a message quite a bit, but you'd hope that such a SIMPLE message would be easier to maintain.You might think that, but it was fucked from the get-go. Then councils and translations and campaigns .....

You think that God, who can create an entire universe without sweating a drop really NEEDs your worship? If he was an insecure ass hole as you claim, he would just rather destroy any traces of rebellion or free thought from the beginning.But instead, he is a God that is loving, and merciful. He gives second chances, even to insignificant scumbags likes you and I.

hmm i wonder, since God is the supreme ruler of all, why did he create us in the first place, maybe he was bored or something, i mean all by himself with nothing to do except ruling the little angels and jinn*shrugs* Disclaimer: this is not an insult for anyone who believes in God

Maybe I got this all wrong. Wasn't this supposed to be a thread for Non-Christians? Because the thread is called "A Question For Non-Christians", so it should be answers to that question only. But I get the distinct feeling that there are quite a few Christians in this thread, and I don't think that is the way the thread was supposed to be. Now, if this actually was to be a thread where poor little non-believing people like myself were supposed to be brought closer to Jesus:

I'M NOT INTERESTED.

There are very probably quite a few good reasons why some of you people have deep faith in the teachings of Jesus (eg illiteracy, inability to cope with life without believing in someone who completely defies logic, because maybe you're affraid of logic as a means to discover truth, but then again, truth was never a main concern of Christianity and its Churches, now was it; and maybe you people obtain happy thoughts about the slaughter of the indigenous peoples of Middle and South America and about slavery, about cruisades and pogroms and wars from Christianity), but, guess what: those reasons are no good for me.

So just stop and have some respect for other beliefs or people who do not believe anything.

I don't think you understand how powerful God really is, how much He listens, or what He wants for us.Oh, "he"'s made it quite clear.
http://lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1
I believe that He is omniscient, omnipresentJob 1:7-9, perhaps? :p
omnipotent.Heh, 'cept where there's iron chariots involved.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19a.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19b.html
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/iron_chariots/jg01_19c.html

And I also believe that He hears all prayers.Now you're getting insulting. :(
As a result, I cannot, without recanting my beliefs, say that anything is above or below him.Compassion obviously is.
Should Christ appear again before a rapture,Heehee. :p

Maybe I got this all wrong. Wasn't this supposed to be a thread for Non-Christians? Because the thread is called "A Question For Non-Christians", so it should be answers to that question only. But I get the distinct feeling that there are quite a few Christians in this thread, and I don't think that is the way the thread was supposed to be.

The question was aimed at non-Christians, sure, but when you post a topic on NSG everyone and anyone has the right to contribute.

In fairness to the various Christians who've shown up on this thread, I've found it to be a refreshing change from most of the religious "discussions" that crop up. Too many of them swiftly degenerate into feeble 'Ebilution iz a myth!!11one' slanging matches.
Except, of course, for the ones that start out as feeble 'Ebilution iz a myth!!11one' slanging matches.

I'd sit there, open-mouthed. But not because of my amazement at Jesus Christ.

I would wonder just how much the government paid that man to pretend to be Jesus. I would then continue to compare this display of control to that of Hitler's over Germany, and finally admit that there is no longer a line between church and state. I would then immediately pack my belongings and move to Canada as an illegal immigrant.

The question was aimed at non-Christians, sure, but when you post a topic on NSG everyone and anyone has the right to contribute.

I get that. But isn't it called hi-jacking when a thread asked for an answer to a specific question, and then suddenly people start talking about a lot of other stuff? I also find it to be a question of etiquette not to bother non-Christians with missionary talk when a thread is specifically aimed at non-Christians. That would be spiritual spam, unsollicited, unwanted, uncalled for. I'm not invading Christian threads and starting to put down Christianity either. (Of course, my religion forbids missionary work directed at people who do not share my beliefs, and Christianity doesn't. But that doesn't mean people on this forum should not be courteous regardless of their religion.)
Unless of course, the thread was supposed to be used for missionary purposes from the get go. That, I would consider very, very base. Lower than base even. But I don't think it was.

I would sacrifice a lamb to Oden and to Tor. When thats done I would go out and hang some of those missionaries daring to come up here.

P.S this is 800 A.D right?

I get that. But isn't it called hi-jacking when a thread asked for an answer to a specific question, and then suddenly people start talking about a lot of other stuff? I also find it to be a question of etiquette not to bother non-Christians with missionary talk when a thread is specifically aimed at non-Christians. That would be spiritual spam, unsollicited, unwanted, uncalled for. I'm not invading Christian threads and starting to put down Christianity either. (Of course, my religion forbids missionary work directed at people who do not share my beliefs, and Christianity doesn't. But that doesn't mean people on this forum should not be courteous regardless of their religion.)
Unless of course, the thread was supposed to be used for missionary purposes from the get go. That, I would consider very, very base. Lower than base even. But I don't think it was.

Sure some would call it hijacking, I would call it the natural evolutionary progression of a thread. It seems that around here, if you don't take the piss and go too far off the point then that is fine. Anybody want to contradict that one?

I would still refuse to follow someone who tells me that loving him/his father is the only way to reach some kind of heavenly afterlife.

I'd be forced by the evidence to believe if that were the case, but I would be strongly against that kind of demagoguery and would refuse to follow.

I care not for the consequences and I think it would be cowardly to do so.

Easy to say I know, but it would really piss me off to have my life be about that.

I would also react in a similar way. I would (if given the opportunity) challenge him to justify the amount of misery, deception and unhappiness; he, his father and the bird have caused around the world.

I would refuse to acknowledge his (it's) soveriegnity as to the safety of my "immortal" soul. I would remind this individual, he has caused (by his foisting an unwanted spiritual philosophy) upon humankind.

Where humankind could have elevated itself to a higher spiritual and political level, it has been unable to do so because of the cant, hypocrisy and dictatorial demands placed upon us, through his and his peers questionable insistence on obeying their ridiculous precepts.

I'm in Ireland, hon.
And I don't deal in money. I believe mixing money and choclate or money and sex will lead to quite a mess.

The sex can be arranged, though... go out and talk to lots of women, and be nice to them, and your prayers shall be answered. :D

How about chocolate and sex? ;)

Remeber that the reason my moth tastes like a carpet is because of all the shrooms and then turn off the Comedy Chanel

And I don't deal in money. I believe mixing money and choclate or money and sex will lead to quite a mess.

In your pants?

Once people start quoting from the bible to establish a point...i loose all interest in the debate...its pointless trying to counter someones fictional "facts".

Remeber that the reason my moth tastes like a carpet is because of all the shrooms and then turn off the Comedy Chanel
You should never lick your moth.

Quality.
I'd like to claim to be the genius behind it, but it was not I. Twas The Tribes Of Longton.
short answer:

If he states god is the typical all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent unchanging god christians claim,... I ignore him at best, consider him as evil at worst.

long answer:
Not worth my time, demonstrative evidence for gods - nil, demonstrative evidence against gods - more than nil.

It amuses me that your short answer is longer than your long answer.

Sure some would call it hijacking, I would call it the natural evolutionary progression of a thread. It seems that around here, if you don't take the piss and go too far off the point then that is fine. Anybody want to contradict that one?

Going on a missionary tour in this thread goes too far IMO.

You should never lick your moth.

http://www.totalwallpapers.com/movies/wallpapers/silence-of-the-lambs.jpg

Going on a missionary tour in this thread goes too far IMO.

Heh then I'll consider myself well contradicted! Ohh and on that note, have you given any thought to becoming a Sikh, and doing some global Seva? I can give you leaflets if you want!:D

I'd piss in Jesus' morning joe!:
then I'd probably be mauled by a hoard of enraged Christians!:)

(Woohoo post # 80!)

Heh then I'll consider myself well contradicted! Ohh and on that note, have you given any thought to becoming a Sikh, and doing some global Seva? I can give you leaflets if you want!:D

:rolleyes: Me thinking you could only be born a Sikh... Oh well. I'm thinking about creating a new religion. I'll let you know as soon as I have some leaflets of my own! :D

:rolleyes: Me thinking you could only be born a Sikh... Oh well. I'm thinking about creating a new religion. I'll let you know as soon as I have some leaflets of my own! :D

You can convert to Sikhism. Technically Hinduism is the only religion you can't convert to.

You can convert to Sikhism. Technically Hinduism is the only religion you can't convert to.

I believe you can convert to Hinduism. I found a short conversion video on how to do it.

http://www.hinduismconversionwatch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU (www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

I believe you can convert to Hinduism. I found a short conversion video on how to do it.

http://www.hinduismconversionwatch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU (www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

It's a good thing I mouse over links.

I can't believe you just tried to Rick Roll me.

First, I would wonder why there's an idiot dictating my life and why I have a coffee maker I never purchased.

I would then watch in amusement as people like Pat Robertson are bitch smacked by Jesus himself.

My thoughts exactly (minus the coffee maker): if Jesus returned and said: "You know guys, you were right when you said that I'd rather millions of people die of AIDS than use condoms, and harassing homosexuals was definitely the best use of your time and money" then I'd turn off the tv in disgust and go on with my life.

If, on the other hand, he gave the Pope, Pat Robertson and the other televangelists/con-artists a good slapping, prior to selling off all their assets and using the procedes to end world poverty, then I'd be impressed.

At this point I'd like to post a link to the Spitting Image video with the Pope and the Second Coming, but sadly I can't find it right now. :(

It's a good thing I mouse over links.

I can't believe you just tried to Rick Roll me.

Believe it, oh yes.