NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a place where christians can talk about issues and ask questions about the bible and other christian things.

This sort of reminds me of those movies when the rich, naive white kid walks into a black ghetto and starts trying to act cool... It usually doesn't end well.

All in one thread? You have little faith in your bible, and the nutters on all sides who are willing to argue about it.

Im expecting some of this :mp5: versus allot of this :sniper: which is then moderated and shut down by this :gundge:....

Oh, guess I can't post here then...

Edit: whoops!

So tell me, where can't we talk about our issues?

If you don't have anything that should go in this post...GO TO A DIFFERENT ONE!

If you don't have anything that should go in this post...GO TO A DIFFERENT ONE!

*pouts*
*goes to different thread*

If you don't have anything that should go in this post...GO TO A DIFFERENT ONE!

Surely only what you posted there can go in that post?

Haha, this thread has epicly failed in its purpose so badly.

This is a place where christians can talk about issues and ask questions about the bible and other christian things.

This is a place where almost anyone can talk about almost anything.. Using the proper term, it is called a 'forum'.

Do you have anything to say in particular, or are you just making topics and hoping we all start spamming things?

The OP is a bit broad. And discriminatory.

I have freedom of speech do I not?

I have freedom of speech do I not?

nope

I'd like it if you would stop mocking me and let me use my post.

I have freedom of speech do I not?

Depends on which Political Party you support...lol...It gets trampled pretty badly down here, in the Heart of the Bible Belt...and it makes me gag at reading the word "Christian" these days...

I wasnt going to post, but when everyone else started spamming, i couldnt resist, lol...

I think that he should start his own forum fo r this. I however do think that all of the athiests on here should respect his right to ask for christians to discuss stuff, and not put up random stuff and spam.

I have freedom of speech do I not?
only what the forum owners, server owners and mods will allow (and the mods tend to be very giving.)

other than that, you have the same freedom to post as everyone else.

now, to keep it on topic... whatever that topic is...

"What was Judas' greatest sin?"

He betrayed Jesus.

"What was Judas' greatest sin?"

Being born.

You just can't trust some people... especially those people that make sure they are born so they can go and turn traitor.

Hey guys whats going on in here

I'd like it if you would stop mocking me and let me use my post.

uhmmm... Tucker...

FYI,
Thread is the container the topic of discussion.
Post is what's in the thread.

so your post should've read...
I'd like it if you would stop mocking me and let me use my thread.

Hey guys whats going on in here

We just abolished the bourgeoise.

He betrayed Jesus.

ah, but wasn't his betrayal necessary for Jesus to be sacrificed and resurrected?

You know... God's plan?

so wouldn't that mean that Judas, who was allowed to be tempted, would've been forgiven since his actions were necessary?

ah, but wasn't his betrayal necessary for Jesus to be sacrificed and resurrected?

You know... God's plan?

so wouldn't that mean that Judas, who was allowed to be tempted, would've been forgiven since his actions were necessary?

Not really, God could've figured out another way for it to happen.

I have freedom of speech do I not?

Sure, and so do we.
Also I would like to point out that there is no ownership of threads in NSG.

so wouldn't that mean that Judas, who was allowed to be tempted, would've been forgiven since his actions were necessary?

Assuming it was necessary, how do we know he wasn't forgiven?

I haven't been up in God's 'hood recently.

What Judas did was wrong and also killed himself which means there's probably a good chance he wasn't forgiven.

Not really, God could've figured out another way for it to happen.

really? or could it be that God knew what would happen and allowed it?

What Judas did was wrong and also killed himself which means there's probably a good chance he wasn't forgiven.

and since Judas rendered his own judgement on himself and not allowed God to judge him, wouldn't that be the greater sin?

and since Judas rendered his own judgement on himself and not allowed God to judge him, wouldn't that be the greater sin?

Very true.

This is a place where christians can talk about issues and ask questions about the bible and other christian things.

No, this is general where a thread like this will be immediately swamped by non-Christians, especially atheists. Besides, if you are a Christian shouldn't you know enough to capitalize the word?

No, this is general where a thread like this will be immediately swamped by non-Christians, especially atheists. Besides, if you are a Christian shouldn't you know enough to capitalize the word?

The lowercase 'c' is a sign of respect for Christ.

I have freedom of speech do I not?

Sure, but most people will consider you a bigot and a moron for trying to suppress other peoples right to freedom of speech on a public thread.

This is a place where CHRISTIANS can talk about issues and ask questions about the bible and other christian things.

Redwulf did you not read the upper-case letters. Atheists can post here too, but don't make fun of me.

Redwulf did you not read the upper-case letters. Atheists can post here too, but don't make fun of me.

I'm glad we have your permission :rolleyes:

I'm glad we have your permission :rolleyes:

Deep, deep, deep down, you know you are glad you have permission.

Otherwise you would feel a constant itch of sin about the whole thing.

So Redwulf do you have anything on subject to say?

Redwulf did you not read the upper-case letters. Atheists can post here too, but don't make fun of me.

points and laughs

I'm glad we have your permission :rolleyes:

Do you have anything else to say.

Well, guess I'll ask a question for fun.

If Yeshua and his disciples brought people back to life left and right before his crucification (at least according to what I read in Matthew's Gospel), why is his resurrection such an amazing feat?

Isn't Christianity the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

Well, guess I'll ask a question for fun.

If Yeshua and his disciples brought people back to life left and right before his crucification (at least according to what I read in Matthew's Gospel), why is his resurrection such an amazing feat?

It's an amazing feat because that shows that he is in fact the son of God.

It's an amazing feat because that shows that he is in fact the son of God.

But, other people were brought back to life... What's so different in Yeshua's case?

Isn't Christianity the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

Jesus died for you. That's what christianity is all about.

Deep, deep, deep down, you know you are glad you have permission.

Otherwise you would feel a constant itch of sin about the whole thing.

*laughs at Bann-ed*

*laughs at Bann-ed*

I hope you are laughing with me here..

Otherwise I'm just laughing and you are laughing at me laughing and this all starts to sound like some really bad late night TV comedy sketch.

Well, guess I'll ask a question for fun.

If Yeshua and his disciples brought people back to life left and right before his crucification (at least according to what I read in Matthew's Gospel), why is his resurrection such an amazing feat?It's an amazing feat because that shows that he is in fact the son of God.
Or shows that it wasn't Yeshua who was bringing people back to life, it was instead one of his supposed disciples.

But, other people were brought back to life... What's so different in Yeshua's case?

Jesus was RESSURECTED not brought back to life there's a difference.

Jesus was RESSURECTED not brought back to life there's a difference.

:confused:

Uhm.. is it the difference between 'Raise Dead' and 'Resurrection'?

Jesus was RESSURECTED not brought back to life there's a difference.

:rolleyes:

1 : to raise from the dead

So what's the difference again?

Or shows that it wasn't Yeshua who was bringing people back to life, it was instead one of his supposed disciples.

No, it was Jesus

Jesus was RESSURECTED not brought back to life there's a difference.

Resurrect
1. to raise from the dead; bring to life again.

(dictionary.com)

Jesus was RESSURECTED not brought back to life there's a difference.

I'm not sure I see the difference. Except maybe that his resurrection wasn't as good as the raisings since he kept his wounds and had to return to heaven soon after. But maybe it's because God didn't want people to think that they could just ask him for another chance at life once they meet him (if they do).

:confused:

Uhm.. is it the difference between 'Raise Dead' and 'Resurrection'?

Huh???:confused:

No, it was Jesus

Ah, but if the resurrections (bringing people back to life) didn't end when Yeshua died, which is evidence that it was indeed not his doing.

Jesus was RESSURECTED not brought back to life there's a difference.

YEAH GUYS DON'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

Resurrection requires 10 more points of mana than Bringing back to life, and it also requires a reincarnation ankh purchased from your local goblin merchant.

Resurrect
1. to raise from the dead; bring to life again.

(dictionary.com)

Okay true but bring to life means something different in this case.

Okay true but bring to life means something different in this case.

And that would be?

:confused:

Uhm.. is it the difference between 'Raise Dead' and 'Resurrection'?
Two spell levels and half the total HP.

*Totally failed a Charisma check on this post*

Isn't it amazing. People said this thread wouldn't last but it has become a major topic within 15 min.

Isn't it amazing. People said this thread wouldn't last but it has become a major topic within 15 min.

Yeah, but it's not exactly on topic is it?

And that would be?

"Jesus is alive" have you ever heard that, well we all no that's not literaly true because he died on the cross but he is alive in our souls.

"Jesus is alive" have you ever heard that, well we all no that's not literaly true because he died on the cross but he is alive in our souls.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/84/Christianity2.jpg

Resurrect
1. to raise from the dead; bring to life again.

(dictionary.com)

You trust that heathen source?

It is a well known fact that atheists propogate and reproduce all over the web like that 'primordial soup' that scientists keep blathering about unwittingly.

Yeah, but it's not exactly on topic is it?

It kind of is.

Oh well, can't say I'm satisfied with your answers, so I'll move in with another question.

If his name was Yeshua, why call him Jesus? It's not even really close.

Isn't it amazing. People said this thread wouldn't last but it has become a major topic within 15 min.Yeah, but it's not exactly on topic is it?

Well, if you go by the thread title it is.

"Jesus is alive" have you ever heard that, well we all no that's not literaly true because he died on the cross but he is alive in our souls.

Doesn't answer my question.

Oh well, can't say I'm satisfied with your answers, so I'll move in with another question.

If his name was Yeshua, why call him Jesus? It's not even really close.

When it was translated from Hebrew to English that's what came up.
other than that I really don't know.

I've a question! Admittedly it isn't really about Jesus...

Did you expect this thread to stay completely on topic?

Doesn't answer my question.

what was your question?

I've a question! Admittedly it isn't really about Jesus...

Did you expect this thread to stay completely on topic?

Does it look like it's stayed on topic?

To ask a serious question,

how do you explain the schism between catholicism and protestantism? Who is right, and why?

When it was translated from Hebrew to English that's what came up.
other than that I really don't know.

Well, I suppose it beats fhqwgads. Anyway, it's 2AM here, so I'm out.

To ask a serious question,

how do you explain the schism between catholicism and protestantism? Who is right, and why?

Remind me what protestanism is?

Resurrect
1. to raise from the dead; bring to life again.

(dictionary.com)Okay true but bring to life means something different in this case.And that would be?

Points /\
what was your question?

What does bring to life mean in this case, i.e. what is the difference between the resurrection of Yeshua and the previous resurrections?

Remind me what protestantism is?

That would really be any branch of christianity that came about after the Lutheran and Calvin split from Roman Catholicism.

or this:
Protestantism encompasses the forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with the doctrines of the Reformation. Protestant doctrine, in contradistinction to that of Roman Catholicism, rejects papal authority and doctrine, and is also known in continental European traditions as Evangelical doctrine. It typically holds that scripture (rather than tradition or ecclesiastic interpretation of scripture[1]) is the only source of revealed truth, and also that salvation can be achieved through God's grace alone. The key tenets of Protestantism are outlined in the Five Solas.

The word Protestant is derived from the Latin protestatio meaning declaration which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms against the Reformation.[2] Since that time, the term Protestantism has been used in many different senses, often as a general term to refer to Western Christianity that is not subject to Papal authority.[2]

While the faiths and churches born directly or indirectly of the Protestant Reformation constitute Protestantism, in common usage, the term is often used in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.[3] This usage is imprecise. There are many non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox communions that long predate the Reformation (notably Oriental Orthodoxy). The Anglican Church, although born of the Protestant reformation, differs from the reformation principles of most other Protestants and is referred to as a middle path—a via media—between Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines. Other groups, such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, reject Protestantism as a deviation from true Christianity, while perceiving themselves to be restorationists.

Points /\


What does bring to life mean in this case, i.e. what is the difference between the resurrection of Yeshua and the previous resurrections?

"Jesus is alive" have you ever heard that, well we all no that's not literaly true because he died on the cross but he is alive in our souls.

That's the answer.

how do you explain the schism between catholicism and protestantism? Who is right, and why?
The historical schism is easy to explain. Martin Luther disagreed with some Catholic practices and ran screaming. There's no doubt (in my mind, at least) that the idea of indulgences is fundamentally mistaken, and even that the heirarchical nature of the RC church is flawed, but that does not make modern Protestantism "right" or Catholicism as it stands "wrong".

That's the answer.

But that isn't an answer, since according to the bible Yeshua was brought back to life in the 'normal' sense albeit only for three days.

That would really be any branch of christianity that came about after the Lutheran and Calvin split from Roman Catholicism.

or this:

Small details, um... like pentecostals speak in tounges while baptists don't.

But that isn't an answer, since according to the bible Yeshua was brought back to life in the 'normal' sense albeit only for three days.
You say "Normal". Walking through walls and disappearing in an instant is hardly "normal".

In my opinion, interpreting Christ's appearances post-resurrection as purely personal events (or in some cases communal experiences - akin to speaking in tongues etc.) seems like a more consistent way to read the gospels ('cept John, but you can see his personal visions as more elaborate ones anyway, especially given Revelation as context).

Two spell levels and half the total HP.

*Totally failed a Charisma check on this post*

Also time limits and body limits. Resurrection can go back longer and, IIRC, doesn't require a complete corpse.

But that isn't an answer, since according to the bible Yeshua was brought back to life in the 'normal' sense albeit only for three days.

Those three days aren't the resurrection, when he ascended into heaven is the ressurection.

Also time limits and body limits. Resurrection can go back longer and, IIRC, doesn't require a complete corpse.
I did not know that. Would Raise Dead work on Jesus, then, or is a full day too long?

I have freedom of speech do I not?
Yes you do, I freely admit that, just as long as you do not actively try to convert people to your religion. And don't even TRY to convert me. Many have tried, all have failed.

But that isn't an answer, since according to the bible Yeshua was brought back to life in the 'normal' sense albeit only for three days.

After three days, not for three days.
While Jesus was able to reanimate other people who were dead, the amazing thing about his resurrection is that he brought himself back, and braved the underworld doing so.
For example, take a machine that fixes cars. The machine gets broken and can no longer fix anything. Somehow, it fixes itself. This is amazing because it could only be possible through an act of God.
If you believe a lot of the Catholic apocryphal texts, like the Harrowing of Hell, then Jesus's death also allowed him to rescue the repentant from Hades, which may have been the point of his death all along.

:confused:

Uhm.. is it the difference between 'Raise Dead' and 'Resurrection'?

Resurrect requires a higher caster level.

EDIT: I should have known others would beat me to the punch line.

I did not know that. Would Raise Dead work on Jesus, then, or is a full day too long?

Raise Dead is either a day or a week per caster level. Let me look it up.

Edit: One day per caster level. Resurrection, on the other hand, is 10 years per caster level.

After three days, not for three days.
While Jesus was able to reanimate other people who were dead, the amazing thing about his resurrection is that he brought himself back, and braved the underworld doing so.
For example, take a machine that fixes cars. The machine gets broken and can no longer fix anything. Somehow, it fixes itself. This is amazing because it could only be possible through an act of God.
If you believe a lot of the Catholic apocryphal texts, like the Harrowing of Hell, then Jesus's death also allowed him to rescue the repentant from Hades, which may have been the point of his death all along.

Thank you I couldn't think of the right thing to tell them.

I should have known others would beat me to the punch line.
Higher initiative stat.

*Nods*
One day per caster level. Resurrection, on the other hand, is 10 years per caster level.
Wow. Suddenly a whole new realm of theories over gospel publication dates emerges.

You say "Normal". Walking through walls and disappearing in an instant is hardly "normal".
I was referring to dictionary definition (i.e. normal) vs. TI definition.
In my opinion, interpreting Christ's appearances post-resurrection as purely personal events (or in some cases communal experiences - akin to speaking in tongues etc.) seems like a more consistent way to read the gospels ('cept John, but you can see his personal visions as more elaborate ones anyway, especially given Revelation as context).
Maybe.
Those three days aren't the resurrection, when he ascended into heaven is the ressurection.

So what is the 3 days then? His corpse got bored?
Also wouldn't when he ascended to heaven be by definition his ascension?

OH my oh my oh my... what if it was true?

and

Oh my, oh my, oh my, tell me is it true?

Did he, did he, did he die upon that cross?

And did he, did he, did he come back across?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxXJ8iTzmyE

That's the answer.
But then again, yhen my grandfather is still alive as well, by that definition. Nothing wrong with that ofcourse.
After three days, not for three days.
While Jesus was able to reanimate other people who were dead, the amazing thing about his resurrection is that he brought himself back, and braved the underworld doing so.
For example, take a machine that fixes cars. The machine gets broken and can no longer fix anything. Somehow, it fixes itself. This is amazing because it could only be possible through an act of God.
If you believe a lot of the Catholic apocryphal texts, like the Harrowing of Hell, then Jesus's death also allowed him to rescue the repentant from Hades, which may have been the point of his death all along.
And then I hear some people saying that it's just the Old Testament wich is so wierd...I'm looking at zombies right now, c'mon.

After three days, not for three days.
My bad, it's been a while since I read the bible.
While Jesus was able to reanimate other people who were dead, the amazing thing about his resurrection is that he brought himself back, and braved the underworld doing so.
Or one of his supposed disciples was the one who was performing the resurrections all along.
For example, take a machine that fixes cars. The machine gets broken and can no longer fix anything. Somehow, it fixes itself. This is amazing because it could only be possible through an act of God.
Or you only thought it fixed itself when in actuality someone else fixed it and didn't take credit for it.
If you believe a lot of the Catholic apocryphal texts,
I don't
like the Harrowing of Hell, then Jesus's death also allowed him to rescue the repentant from Hades, which may have been the point of his death all along.
It would be an explanation.

:confused:

Uhm.. is it the difference between 'Raise Dead' and 'Resurrection'?

YEAH GUYS DON'T YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

Resurrection requires 10 more points of mana than Bringing back to life, and it also requires a reincarnation ankh purchased from your local goblin merchant.

Ugh... Mana?

Nono, Raise Dead is a level 5 Cleric spell--meaning IIRC, Jesus would have had to be Level 10 to use it.

You restore life to a deceased creature. You can raise a creature that has been dead for no longer than one day per caster level. In addition, the subject’s soul must be free and willing to return. If the subject’s soul is not willing to return, the spell does not work; therefore, a subject that wants to return receives no saving throw.

Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell loses one level (or 1 Hit Die) when it is raised, just as if it had lost a level or a Hit Die to an energy-draining creature. If the subject is 1st level, it loses 2 points of Constitution instead (if this would reduce its Con to 0 or less, it can’t be raised). This level/HD loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means. A character who died with spells prepared has a 50% chance of losing any given spell upon being raised, in addition to losing spells for losing a level. A spellcasting creature that doesn’t prepare spells (such as a sorcerer) has a 50% chance of losing any given unused spell slot as if it had been used to cast a spell, in addition to losing spell slots for losing a level.

A raised creature has a number of hit points equal to its current Hit Dice. Any ability scores damaged to 0 are raised to 1. Normal poison and normal disease are cured in the process of raising the subject, but magical diseases and curses are not undone. While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life. None of the dead creature’s equipment or possessions are affected in any way by this spell.

A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can’t be raised by this spell. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be raised. The spell cannot bring back a creature that has died of old age.
Material Component

Diamonds worth a total of least 5,000 gp.

Resurrection is level 7, so Jesus would have had to be at least Level 14 at the time of his death (Of course he cast it on himself so that would either take a contingency or a homebrew feat.)

This spell functions like raise dead, except that you are able to restore life and complete strength to any deceased creature.

The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of prepared spells. However, the subject loses one level, or 2 points of Constitution if the subject was 1st level. (If this reduction would bring its Con to 0 or lower, it can’t be resurrected). This level loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means.

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.
Material Component

A sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp.

Although I suppose he could have used True Resurrection, but that would require him to be level 18 which is near epic.

I did not know that. Would Raise Dead work on Jesus, then, or is a full day too long?

Jesus was at least level 10 to use Raise Dead. Three days would have been well within his range.


...Oh, now I know why I'm not dating.

During the three days he was dead he was in Hell.
Why would Jesus be in Hell? Is that mentioned ánywhere in the Bible?

[QUOTE=So what is the 3 days then? His corpse got bored?
Also wouldn't when he ascended to heaven be by definition his ascension?[/QUOTE]

During the three days he was dead he was in Hell.

:) Okay the differance between Jesus raising the dead and his ressurection was that those people he raised eventually died again. However Jesus's ressurection is different because he died once and was raised and will never die again. Hope this helps guys!! Take care!!

Higher initiative stat.

*Nods*

Damn it! I knew I should have taken Improved Initiative instead of Weapon Finesse!:headbang:

As for Judas's greatest sin, there was a point where it was said: "Transgressions are bound to occur, but woe to the transgressor!"

While it's possible that Judas knew how instrumental he was to the resurrection plan, or that his hand was guided by fate, it's also possible that he was just a traitor.

Jesus may have taken someone into his fold who he knew would betray him. Even if you don't believe in predestination (which I don't) you may believe that God, being smart, can work out a pretty accurate vision of the future. It may be that Jesus picked a naturally traitorous person, someone who would sacrifice a friend for personal gain. Taking Judas into the disciples with foreknowledge of his coming betrayal may have been something Jesus did intentionally, both to ensure he would get crucified and to change Judas as a person.

After betraying Jesus, Judas did undergo a change. Judas did repent (from a certain point of view), casting the silver away and hanging himself to join Christ. Supposedly, repentance is all that's required for forgiveness, so Judas got to go to heaven like everyone else, no matter how you slice it.

So what is the 3 days then? His corpse got bored?
Also wouldn't when he ascended to heaven be by definition his ascension?
During the three days of his death, He was well and truly dead. According to tradition, "He descended into hell" where He released those souls trapped there.

I think it was more to show that He was REALLY dead, not just in a coma.

Why would Jesus be in Hell? Is that mentioned ánywhere in the Bible?

Yes he went to Hell because he took all mans' sins.

During the three days he was dead he was in Hell.
During the three days of his death, He was well and truly dead. According to tradition, "He descended into hell" where He released those souls trapped there.

I think it was more to show that He was REALLY dead, not just in a coma.

It has been covered that I screwed up about the 3 days...


Doesn't change the question of:

If according to you Yeshua's actual resurrection wasn't when he came back to life, it was when he ascended to heaven what would you call his being brought back to life after 3 days?

Also, again wouldn't Yeshua's ascending to heaven be by definition his ascension?

Yes he went to Hell because he took all mans' sins.
Except the ones who don't want to give them to him? (Genuinely don't know about Christian perspective on this one)

Yes he went to Hell because he took all mans' sins.
Why would he be sent to Hell for that? Afterall, he apperantly is the son of God, on Earth to make some things pretty clear, to make a sacrifice, then got send to hell for it? Why couldn't he just go back to Heaven? Afterall, God could've cleansed the sins he absorbed or something right off him. But then again, where is Jesus going to Hell mentioned specifically in the Bible?

But then again, yhen my grandfather is still alive as well, by that definition. Nothing wrong with that ofcourse.

And then I hear some people saying that it's just the Old Testament wich is so wierd...I'm looking at zombies right now, c'mon.

Ahh, but Jesus didn't have an insatiable hunger for... for... BRAINS!

Why would Jesus be in Hell? Is that mentioned ánywhere in the Bible?
It's from The Apostles' Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

Yes he went to Hell because he took all mans' sins.

Which makes no sense.

Why would he be sent to Hell for that? Afterall, he apperantly is the son of God, on Earth to make some things pretty clear, to make a sacrifice, then got send to hell for it? Why couldn't he just go back to Heaven? Afterall, God could've cleansed the sins he absorbed or something right off him. But then again, where is Jesus going to Hell mentioned specifically in the Bible?

Jesus had to steal the keys of death and hell.

Except the ones who don't want to give them to him? (Genuinely don't know about Christian perspective on this one)

Too bad.

He called dibs on our sins in the Beginning.

Jesus had to steal the keys of death and hell.
Jesus: Metal Gear Saviour.

That would be a pretty cool video game, actually.

Which makes no sense.

Look it up. You'll get the answer.

Except the ones who don't want to give them to him? (Genuinely don't know about Christian perspective on this one)
Not too sure what you're asking here. But, from what I understand that you're trying to say (And please correct me if I'm wrong), you don't GIVE your sins, Jesus died for ALL our sins, given, forgiven, or no.

My bad, it's been a while since I read the bible.

It's not exactly a "can't-put-it-downer"... at least not for me.

Or one of his supposed disciples was the one who was performing the resurrections all along.

Or you only thought it fixed itself when in actuality someone else fixed it and didn't take credit for it.

There's really no way to prove or disprove those claims. All we know is that Jesus is the one who received credit and the one who was witnessed performing the miracles. While it is possible that it was someone else, there's just no way to know.
Might make an interesting story, though.

I don't

It would be an explanation.

Generally, I don't believe in apocryphal texts, either. But the Harrowing of Hell makes sense to me, because it gives a much more specific reason for Jesus's suicide-by-mob maneuver than the vague: "He died for your sins."

Not too sure what you're asking here. But, from what I understand that you're trying to say (And please correct me if I'm wrong), you don't GIVE your sins, Jesus died for ALL our sins, given, forgiven, or no.
But, and forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't not accepting this forgiveness render one outside of salvation? If so, what sins could you possibly be punished for if they've already been dealt with?

Jesus: Metal Gear Saviour.

That would be a pretty cool video game, actually.

I'd play it.

Jesus had to steal the keys of death and hell.
Why? He has God as his father, the almighty being. Really, that just looks like a videogame.
Not too sure what you're asking here. But, from what I understand that you're trying to say (And please correct me if I'm wrong), you don't GIVE your sins, Jesus died for ALL our sins, given, forgiven, or no.
That does not make sense to me really. I also heard about a possible translation error, that it's not for our sins but because of our sins he died. That however, does make sense to me, something like "Look what this man tried to do, tried to spread love and peace, and you killed him." The dying fór our sins sounds really réally odd to me.

Why would he be sent to Hell for that? Afterall, he apperantly is the son of God, on Earth to make some things pretty clear, to make a sacrifice, then got send to hell for it? Why couldn't he just go back to Heaven? Afterall, God could've cleansed the sins he absorbed or something right off him. But then again, where is Jesus going to Hell mentioned specifically in the Bible?
Because it was part of the sacrifice He was asked to make. He had to suffer Death and the hell that comes afterwards to redeem us.

This talks about it http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

If you're willing to wade through it. theologians tend to be wordy in the extreme.

Look it up. You'll get the answer.

Yeshua took all (or at least most depending upon interpretation) man's sins.

Yahweh judges whether someone goes to hell.

Yeshua is Yahweh.

Why would he send himself to hell? It makes no sense.

well, Im no christian, to believe there is a god is to fool yourself, to beieve there is a god because the bible says so is to be foofled by stoners who lived rouglhy 2000 years ago, to try and convinve me theres a go (you know who you are, goddam jehovas wittnesses) is to really PISS ME OFF:upyours:

Does this make me an athiest, I dont know, nor do I care, just dont try to convert m and you might as well be worshipping brainwashed alien souls discoverd by an pedofile siece fiction writer, so why did I podt this? I dont have a goddam clue:fluffle: (nor do I understand whath taht last emoticon had to do whit but I just thought it looked sweet:)

Why? He has God as his father, the almighty being. Really, that just looks like a videogame.

Jesus was already there might as well do it himself.

It's not exactly a "can't-put-it-downer"... at least not for me.
Nor for me
There's really no way to prove or disprove those claims. All we know is that Jesus is the one who received credit and the one who was witnessed performing the miracles. While it is possible that it was someone else, there's just no way to know.
Might make an interesting story, though.
That was kinda my point.
Generally, I don't believe in apocryphal texts, either. But the Harrowing of Hell makes sense to me, because it gives a much more specific reason for Jesus's suicide-by-mob maneuver than the vague: "He died for your sins."
I'm not familiar with them, but it certainly makes more sense than he sent himself to hell for saving mankind.

Yeshua took all (or at least most depending upon interpretation) man's sins.

Yahweh judges whether someone goes to hell.

Yeshua is Yahweh.

Why would he send himself to hell? It makes no sense.

Because God needed those keys in order for us to go to heaven.

But, and forgive me if I'm wrong, doesn't not accepting this forgiveness render one outside of salvation? If so, what sins could you possibly be punished for if they've already been dealt with?
Er, yes and no? That's one of the very big and large arguments within Christianity.

From what I was taught and understood, Christ has died for your sins, however, for you to receive redemption, you have to ask for forgiveness. The point being that you asking for it alone is not enough, Christ still needed to pay for them. An analogy would be that let's say you are arrested. You cannot make bail, so a kind person agrees to pay for bail on your behalf; however, you still need to show up in court and ask to be released (Clumsy, I know).

I'm not saying that's what I personally believe, but what I was taught.

Actually I believe the Catholics tried to alleviate some of the holes in the idea of revealed truth by saying that after being resurrected Jesus went down to Hell and saved all the souls who had died and gone to Hell before his salvation came to Earth. You see, that's one of the big flaws in revealed truth, it takes place in earthly time lines.

Because God needed those keys in order for us to go to heaven.

And he couldn't just make new ones?

Yeshua took all (or at least most depending upon interpretation) man's sins.

Yahweh judges whether someone goes to hell.

Yeshua is Yahweh.

Why would he send himself to hell? It makes no sense.
I kinda read it as a loophole in Jewish law. The law allows sacrifices for the repentence of past sins, right? Well, if God is outside of time then a sacrifice of God directly works as a time-independent sacrifice, because sacrificing him in the past is also sacrificing him in the future.

I mean, sure, it doesn't make sense from a wider picture, but as an extension of Law, it's a great hack.

Because God needed those keys in order for us to go to heaven.
God is Almighty; what's the problem with those keys? Really, God locked himself out of his own home? It starts to sound really strange.
From what I was taught and understood, Christ has died for your sins, however, for you to receive redemption, you have to ask for forgiveness. The point being that you asking for it alone is not enough, Christ still needed to pay for them. An analogy would be that let's say you are arrested. You cannot make bail, so a kind person agrees to pay for bail on your behalf; however, you still need to show up in court and ask to be released (Clumsy, I know).
That's again something I find very strange, the sentence "He died for your sins.", the word "for" seems to incredibly out of place. I can understand if he died becáuse of our sins, but fór our sins...that doesn't even sound like correct English to me (but that's just me I suppose ;)).

And he couldn't just make new ones?

Hey! Who is the Christian here? You or Tuck?

And he couldn't just make new ones?

He could but then the story would be pretty boring and Jesus would have no importance.

Back on the Jesus/Yeshua thing. Apparently Yeshua turned water into beer, not wine. I can see why they chose wine though... Slightly more poetic.
The rationalization for this is in the original latin texts the word used meant 'alcoholic beverage' and was commonly used to refer to beer at the time. It is possible to suggest that they meant wine, but wine was rare and exotic in those days and would surely be labeled properly if it was the result of the transformation.
Read this all in a beer book.. mmmm beer...
I don't really care either way though... whether translated correctly or not it's still a crock of $#!%....

Here's a question for our OP: Did Jesus die for all our sins?

He could but then the story would be pretty boring and Jesus would have no importance.

So Yahweh tortured himself/his son to make for a more interesting story? You're not exactly making Yahweh or christianity look very good here.

Here's a question for our OP: Did Jesus die for all our sins?

Wanted to make sure TI saw this, definitely curious about the answer.

He could but then the story would be pretty boring and Jesus would have no importance.
So it's just to make the story interesting hmm ;) Well I suppose a story without a juicy action chapter isn't a proper story :P But really, I don't see how Jesus would loose importance. Even if Jesus would just be a regular person; his teachings are still there, regardless of whereither he existed, went to hell to get some keys or was some kind of uber-being, the teaching and value's are still written down ready to be thought again. I don't get all the fuzz.

God is Almighty; what's the problem with those keys? Really, God locked himself out of his own home? It starts to sound really strange.

That's again something I find very strange, the sentence "He died for your sins.", the word "for" seems to incredibly out of place. I can understand if he died becáuse of our sins, but fór our sins...that doesn't even sound like correct English to me (but that's just me I suppose ;)).

1) No God took the keys of death and hell. The keys symbolise control.

2) He died for you so your sins could be forgiven.

Jesus was at least level 10 to use Raise Dead. Three days would have been well within his range.
...Oh, now I know why I'm not dating.
Well here are some options:

Simple Necromancer raise-dead over corpse, but if that worked Jesus would only come back as a skeletal warrior or mage.

Animate Dead from Death Knight over corpse, but if that worked Jesus would only come back as as an invulnerable undead ghoul for like 2 minutes then die.

Resurrection from Paladin over corpse seems likely, but that and all of the above requires that Jesus is not a hero.

Most likely scenario: Jesus was secretly carrying an Ankh of Reincarnation in one of his inventory slots when he died on the cross, which would mean he is a hero.

Hey! Who is the Christian here? You or Tuck?
That would be TI...
So Yahweh tortured himself/his son to make for a more interesting story? You're not exactly making Yahweh or christianity look very good here.



Wanted to make sure TI saw this, definitely curious about the answer.
Points /\
1) No God took the keys of death and hell. The keys symbolise control.

2) He died for you so your sins could be forgiven.

So it's just to make the story interesting hmm ;) Well I suppose a story without a juicy action chapter isn't a proper story :P But really, I don't see how Jesus would loose importance. Even if Jesus would just be a regular person; his teachings are still there, regardless of whereither he existed, went to hell to get some keys or was some kind of uber-being, the teaching and value's are still written down ready to be thought again. I don't get all the fuzz.

If god took the keys himself Jesus would have no way to get out of hell.

That would be TI...

Don't question his authority then.

If god took the keys himself Jesus would have no way to get out of hell.
God can just make new one's and pass them over to Jesus, or God can just open the gates of Hell and let Jesus out. Besides, I suppose Jesus doesn't hold all the powers from his father then? What is he then, a super-angel?

If god took the keys himself Jesus would have no way to get out of hell.

If Yahweh took the keys himself then he wouldn't have had to send Yeshua to hell to begin with.

So basically, Yahweh, according to you is a lazy, vicious bastard.

So Yahweh tortured himself/his son to make for a more interesting story? You're not exactly making Yahweh or christianity look very good here.

No I was joking God sent his son to die for you because he wanted you to go to heaven.

Why? He has God as his father, the almighty being. Really, that just looks like a videogame.
At least I'm not the only one to think that. Marketable, do you think? You could have him traversing the 9 circles in a stealth mission and have an awesome winged showdown with Satan at the deepest level that would make even Shadow of the Colossus look tame by comparison.

No I was joking God sent his son to die for you because he wanted you to go to heaven.

Not gonna happen unless Yeshua truly did die for everyone's sins.

God can just make new one's and pass them over to Jesus, or God can just open the gates of Hell and let Jesus out. Besides, I suppose Jesus doesn't hold all the powers from his father then? What is he then, a super-angel?

God can't enter Hell that's like the U.S. just walking into Alqueda Headquarters.

Anyone seen that movie called Constantine with Keanu Reeves? That was a pretty cool religious film.

God can't enter Hell that's like the U.S. just walking into Alqueda Headquarters.

Through that analogy you just insinuated that the United States created the terrorist group in the first place.

Or is that a fact anyway?

God can't enter Hell that's like the U.S. just walking into Alqueda Headquarters.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't Yeshua and Yahweh essentially the same thing? Or am I completely misunderstanding the holy trinity?

If Yahweh took the keys himself then he wouldn't have had to send Yeshua to hell to begin with.

So basically, Yahweh, according to you is a lazy, vicious bastard.

God cared enough to send his one and only son to die for you so you could enter the gates of heaven. Yea he's real vicious.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't Yeshua and Yahweh essentially the same thing? Or am I completely misunderstanding the holy trinity?

Well yes but God can be anywhere at once.

Through that analogy you just insinuated that the United States created the terrorist group in the first place.

Or is that a fact anyway?

You know that's not what I meant.

I gotta go I'll be back.

God can't enter Hell that's like the U.S. just walking into Alqueda Headquarters.
So God isn't Almighty?
God cared enough to send his one and only son to die for you so you could enter the gates of heaven. Yea he's real vicious.
It is for it's son, and how noble it may be, I don't approve of that: his son is innocent, has nothing to do with it. By the way, who's the real mother? (Maria just looks like a carrier womb)
Well yes but God can be anywhere at once.
"Anywhere at once" includes Hell as well, or it wouldn't be "anywhere". So what is it? You're contradicting yourself a bit.
Besides, the question where you reacted on did not go about where God was, it was about who God was. The fact that God would be anywhere, doesn't mean he IS his son as well.

God cared enough to send his one and only son to die for you so you could enter the gates of heaven. Yea he's real vicious.

He created the situation where his son had to die and be sent to hell because he couldn't be bothered to get the keys to hell himself, except he did get the keys himself because Yeshua and Yahweh are essentially one and the same.

Not to mention he created the whole concept of sin in the first place.

Er, yes and no? That's one of the very big and large arguments within Christianity.

From what I was taught and understood, Christ has died for your sins, however, for you to receive redemption, you have to ask for forgiveness. The point being that you asking for it alone is not enough, Christ still needed to pay for them. An analogy would be that let's say you are arrested. You cannot make bail, so a kind person agrees to pay for bail on your behalf; however, you still need to show up in court and ask to be released (Clumsy, I know).

I'm not saying that's what I personally believe, but what I was taught.
That's what I'd kinda suspected, but functionally, is there much difference between not assuming consent and requiring active petition? I mean, in said court case, let's assume that the courts require that even if bail is paid, I have to go and ask to be let out. Isn't that effectively the same as an explicit assumption that I don't want to be let out unless I say otherwise, even if someone pays the bail fees?

What I'm getting at is that if Jesus really did take everyone's sins, why not just let us go? If the bail is paid, why can't we just walk out? Is it because it's assumed that we won't want to be let out?

Oh! There's a thought. Maybe you're appealing to the courts to allow the bail to be accepted? That is, you're asking God to allow Jesus's sacrifice to go through?

Or am I getting too bogged down in the court metaphor? :D

Quotes?

If there is a God, we cannot understand him, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. So you must wager. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.

Tell me, why is it that atheists express their rage against God although in their view, He does not exist?

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

If there is a God, we cannot understand him, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. So you must wager. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.
You're actually trying Pascal's wager? :rolleyes:
Tell me, why is it that atheists express their rage against God although in their view, He does not exist?

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.

What rage?

well, Im no christian, to believe there is a god is to fool yourself, to beieve there is a god because the bible says so is to be foofled by stoners who lived rouglhy 2000 years ago, to try and convinve me theres a go (you know who you are, goddam jehovas wittnesses) is to really PISS ME OFF:upyours:

Does this make me an athiest, I dont know, nor do I care, just dont try to convert m and you might as well be worshipping brainwashed alien souls discoverd by an pedofile siece fiction writer, so why did I podt this? I dont have a goddam clue:fluffle: (nor do I understand whath taht last emoticon had to do whit but I just thought it looked sweet:)

For your crimes against grammar, I sentence you to the Infinite Planes of the Abyss!

Well here are some options:

Simple Necromancer raise-dead over corpse, but if that worked Jesus would only come back as a skeletal warrior or mage.

Animate Dead from Death Knight over corpse, but if that worked Jesus would only come back as as an invulnerable undead ghoul for like 2 minutes then die.

Resurrection from Paladin over corpse seems likely, but that and all of the above requires that Jesus is not a hero.

Most likely scenario: Jesus was secretly carrying an Ankh of Reincarnation in one of his inventory slots when he died on the cross, which would mean he is a hero.

Ah. Still, that doesn't explain why Elminster didn't just blow up Rome.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't Yeshua and Yahweh essentially the same thing? Or am I completely misunderstanding the holy trinity?

Three distinct persons in one. Kind of hard to explain but...

The Father is not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The Father is God.

Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God.

The Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. The Holy Spirit is God.

I personally find it to be the most intriguing part of our theology.

Quotes?

If there is a God, we cannot understand him, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. So you must wager. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.

Tell me, why is it that atheists express their rage against God although in their view, He does not exist?

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
Means that God would not be Almighty anyway, if he would've been he would've found a way for us to understand him (duh, almighty). Anyway, it's not true that atheists think "God does not exist.". Disect the word, a-theist. A theist is a person who holds faith, an a-theist is a person who does not hold faith. That's it, that doesn't say anything about denying anything.
And about that rage, well that's just looking for logical inconsistenties in stories and myths, I wouldn't call that particulary atheistic.
Three distinct persons in one. Kind of hard to explain but...

The Father is not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The Father is God.

Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God.

The Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. The Holy Spirit is God.

I personally find it to be the most intriguing part of our theology.
Hard? Nah, just 3 manifestations of the same being, Jesus would be the human form.

God can't enter Hell that's like the U.S. just walking into Alqueda Headquarters.

God can't...

Didn't an Angel talk to Lazerus as he burned in hell?
Wasn't there many parables of Angels going to hell to retreive redeemed souls?

are you saying that Angels can go where God cannot?

Quotes?

If there is a God, we cannot understand him, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. So you must wager. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.

Tell me, why is it that atheists express their rage against God although in their view, He does not exist?

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Religion is never a personal matter to those who profess it, no matter what they say to the contrary. Innate within religion is the belief that you can't just keep it to yourself, you must convert the infidels, and this isn't just a voluntary thing, religious people, especially in America, are constantly trying to force religion into schools and onto the people who aren't yet intelligent enough to see through religion; children.

Quotes?

If there is a God, we cannot understand him, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. So you must wager. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.

Tell me, why is it that atheists express their rage against God although in their view, He does not exist?

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Do you want a refutation of Pascals Wager?

Three distinct persons in one. Kind of hard to explain but...

The Father is not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The Father is God.

Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God.

The Holy Spirit is not the Father or Jesus. The Holy Spirit is God.
Ummmm, okay

Let's use F for The Father, J for Jesus, H for Holy Spirit, and G for God

F≠H or J, F=G
J≠H or F, J=G
H≠J or F, H=G

How does that make any sense?
If F=G and J=G, then F=J

I personally find it to be one of the most nonsensical parts of your theology.
Fixed (for me anyways

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.
Most Atheists fight against organised religion rather than God itself. A lot of them do so as a consequence of bad experience with religion, true, but I don't think they personally blame God as much the Idea of God.

Mind you, one thing I do find amusing is that they always discard out of hand the idea of gods in the plural. No mystical allegories here! "god" means what Monotheism says it means! And in doing so, they've bought into the fiction that matters most - the idea that Monotheism knows exactly what it's talking about.

Don't question his authority then.

When he starts making sense and stops contradicting himself I'll stop questioning his authority.

Innate within religion is the belief that you can't just keep it to yourself, you must convert the infidels, and this isn't just a voluntary thing, religious people, especially in America, are constantly trying to force religion into schools and onto the people who aren't yet intelligent enough to see through religion; children.

Oh? And atheism isn't?

You of all people should understand that if atheism spread, it would become a faith as intolerable as the ancient ones.

_______________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Ummmm, okay

Let's use F for The Father, J for Jesus, H for Holy Spirit, and G for God

F≠H or J, F=G
J≠H or F, J=G
H≠J or F, H=G

How does that make any sense?
If F=G and J=G, then F=J


Fixed (for me anyways
Well, like I sad, 3 manefestations (wrong spelling, I know) of the same being. Not that hard I say, God can just split himself up, morph into different things.

Oh? And atheism isn't?

No, it isn't.

Oh? And atheism isn't?

You of all people should understand that if atheism spread, it would become a faith as intolerable as the ancient ones.

_______________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
A-theism is the absence of faith (the A meaning not, or something like that, it's Greek or Latin), therefore by definition, it can't grow to an "intolerable faith".

Well, like I sad, 3 manifestations (wrong spelling, I know) of the same being. Not that hard I say, God can just split himself up, morph into different things.

Fixed the spelling for you.

So if F,J, & H are just different forms of G, then I was correct.

Isnt this what they call a 'dogpile' on II? >_>

Well, like I sad, 3 manefestations (wrong spelling, I know) of the same being. Not that hard I say, God can just split himself up, morph into different things.

I had a girlfriend once that could do that. She had a Multiple Personality Disorder, and had three personalities in addition to her primary personality.


Yes, I have incredibly bad taste in women.

Ummmm, okay

Let's use F for The Father, J for Jesus, H for Holy Spirit, and G for God

F≠H or J, F=G
J≠H or F, J=G
H≠J or F, H=G

How does that make any sense?
If F=G and J=G, then F=J

That's sort of what makes it hard to explain. By our logic it doesn't make sense. For the record, does that argument even work outside of Math?

Let's substitute your variables here for a sec.

Let's use L for the Legislative Branch, E for the Executive Branch, J for the Judicial Branch and F for the U.S. Federal Government.

L≠E or J, L=F
E≠L or J, E=F
J≠L or E, J=F

Fixed (for me anyways

Meh. What you think of my theology is strictly your business and not mine.

Oh dear God! Not this again! Not another Christian thread!

MY EYES!! MY EYES!!!

When he starts making sense and stops contradicting himself I'll stop questioning his authority.

When I start being serious and stop joking around, you can effectively counter my posts.

Oh dear God! Not this again! Not another Christian thread!

MY EYES!! MY EYES!!!

Why stop there? Keep going...

MY EYES MY EYES... have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!

HE is marching in vineyards and something about angry grapes are stored!

For the blah blah blah and the blah blah blah blah....!

Most Atheists fight against organised religion rather than God itself.

Then that would be acceptable if it were really true. I too am against organized religion. Anyone here who accepts God but fights organized religion, please raise your hand.

No, it isn't.

Oh? It isn't? Are all schools promoting religion then?

A-theism is the absence of faith (the A meaning not, or something like that, it's Greek or Latin), therefore by definition, it can't grow to an "intolerable faith".

Don't start saying that what you believe isn't a belief. Thats completely contradictory...you'll sound like an idiot trying to uphold that. I'll say it again: atheism is a faith/belief (whatever) that is just as intolerable as the ancient ones.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

That's sort of what makes it hard to explain. By our logic it doesn't make sense. For the record, does that argument even work outside of Math?

Let's substitute your variables here for a sec.

Let's use L for the Legislative Branch, E for the Executive Branch, J for the Judicial Branch and F for the U.S. Federal Government.

L≠E or J, L=F
E≠L or J, E=F
J≠L or E, J=F
Okay, I think I understand better now, thanks.
Meh. What you think of my theology is strictly your business and not mine.
Mostly I was making the distinction that it is yours, not ours.

I had a girlfriend once that could do that. She had a Multiple Personality Disorder, and had two personalities in addition to her primary personality.


Yes, I have incredibly bad taste in women.
She still couldn't morph into a burning bush, a different species (in God's case, a human) or anything else. If she could, I only appreciate your taste in woman ;)
Fixed the spelling for you.

So if F,J, & H are just different forms of G, then I was correct
Thanks, I'm glad I'll be getting proper English classes next year.
Anyway, it does sound like the only explanation that only makes sense.

Why stop there? Keep going...

MY EYES MY EYES... have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!

HE is marching in vineyards and something about angry grapes are stored!

For the blah blah blah and the blah blah blah blah....!


IT BURNZ!! IT BURNZ US!!! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

Twelve years of Catholic school does that to you.

Oh? It isn't? Are all schools promoting religion then?
So, not promoting religion is the same as trying to stamp it out?
Don't start saying that what you believe isn't a belief. Thats completely contradictory...you'll sound like an idiot trying to uphold that. I'll say it again: atheism is a faith/belief (whatever) that is just as intolerable as the ancient ones.
:rolleyes:

Don't start saying that what you believe isn't a belief. Thats completely contradictory...you'll sound like an idiot trying to uphold that. I'll say it again: atheism is a faith/belief (whatever) that is just as intolerable as the ancient ones.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
You don't understand, by definition a-theism means the absence of faith, the lack of beleif. That's just the meaning of the word, you can charge full speed ahead against that, but that won't change anything.
I'll repeat myself, a-theism is per definition an absence of faith, so can per definition nót grow to an "intolerable faith" because there IS no faith. I don't understand what's the problem is.
What you mean, apperantly beleiving there is no God, is NOT a-theism.

Pascals Wager is religious hucksterism of the cheapest, vulgarest, nastiest kind it's possible to imagine. It's basically the equivalent of 'come on, what have you got to loose, I've got a good offer for you! Come into my used car lot I promise none are rusty, come on baby just lie a little and you'll never know!:p '. NO DON'T talk to me like that, and don't call it piety when you do it, or prepare to have piety despised.

I think if I ever appeared before God after dying that I would have to say 'O Lord, but you didn't provide enough evidence!':p . In fact I actually think I'd go a bit further and say 'Well look boss, if it's true what they say about you, that you an infinetely kind and forgiving being, then do you possibly have enough room in your obviously enormously capacious heart for someone who just couldn't honestly bring themselves to believe'.

This is opposed to someone who would have spent half their life on their knees fawning professions of faith because some bloke called Pascal told them it was a good bet. Which of us is the more moral? Which of us is the more honest? Which of us is the more courageous?

Okay, I think I understand better now, thanks.

There's also the example of water. Ice is water, but it is not a liquid or a vapor. Water (as a liquid) is Water, but not Ice or vapor. Water Vapor is water but neither a liquid nor ice. Of course it can't manage to be all three at once AFAIK.

These all break down eventually, as all analogies do.

Mostly I was making the distinction that it is yours, not ours.

Traditional Christian theology is what I should have specified.

Wait... are you a heretic??????!?!?!@??!@!?!@!2

Then that would be acceptable if it were really true. I too am against organized religion. Anyone here who accepts God but fights organized religion, please raise your hand.
I don't accept God, as such, since outside of a religious context, actually putting down on paper what God is beyond a simplistic explanation of a highly complex personal experience is incredibly difficult. All I know of it are what other people say and what I've felt, and tying these together is a question of faith not in God but in the idea that other people know the truth any better than I do.

I'm quite content to accept the name others put to it. I'm not, at present, content to accept their explanation for it.

Can I put my hand up? :confused:

IT BURNZ!! IT BURNZ US!!! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

Twelve years of Catholic school does that to you.

Then I apologize in advance for posting this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZmknvOB4I)

Traditional Christian theology is what I should have specified.

Wait... are you a heretic??????!?!?!@??!@!?!@!2

I'm an agnostic atheist, so maybe?

There's also the example of water. Ice is water, but it is not a liquid or a vapor. Water (as a liquid) is Water, but not Ice or vapor. Water Vapor is water but neither a liquid nor ice. Of course it can't manage to be all three at once AFAIK.
Lemme rephrase that: "liquid water", ice and steam are all different forms/manifestations from H2O.

Wait... are you a heretic??????!?!?!@??!@!?!@!2
*Does the heresy dance. They have dances for everything these days, don't they?*

Oh? And atheism isn't?

You of all people should understand that if atheism spread, it would become a faith as intolerable as the ancient ones.

_______________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Atheism has no doctrines, it's simply an acceptance of reality.

You don't understand, by definition a-theism means the absence of faith, the lack of beleif.

Well since you don't believe anything, you can't present an argument, because you are neither for or against Christianity. See how it doesn't make sense?

I can say that I'm an a-person, or a nonperson, if you like. Heck, the definition of the word means that "I'm not a person", or I "lack a person".

Haha but that doesn't mean its true!

But you believe that atheism is right, and that belief in God is incorrect. Therefore by making judgements of right and wrong, you have morals. By upholding morals, you have a faith of your own. Atheism. I don't care if it tells itself that it "isn't really a belief". You'd be really naive to accept that.

__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Then I apologize in advance for posting this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZmknvOB4I)


*twitches to death after Jeebus-clicking Bann-ed´s link*

*twitches to death after Jeebus-clicking Bann-ed´s link*

If only you had a bit of faith.. we could resurrect you?

Well since you don't believe anything, you can't present an argument, because you are neither for or against Christianity. See how it doesn't make sense?

I can say that I'm an a-person, or a nonperson, if you like. Heck, the definition of the word means that "I'm not a person", or I "lack a person".

Haha but that doesn't mean its true!

But you believe that atheism is right, and that belief in God is incorrect. Therefore by making judgements of right and wrong, you have morals. By upholding morals, you have a faith of your own. Atheism. I don't care if it tells itself that it "isn't really a belief". You'd be really naive to accept that.

Translation:
I can't comprehend not having a set belief system so you must have one.

If only you had a bit of faith.. we could resurrect you?

Fish slap me.:D

((I better leave this Holy Place before I´m accused of spamming it. Shalom!))

Well since you don't believe anything, you can't present an argument, because you are neither for or against Christianity. See how it doesn't make sense?

I can say that I'm an a-person, or a nonperson, if you like. Heck, the definition of the word means that "I'm not a person", or I "lack a person".

Haha but that doesn't mean its true!

But you believe that atheism is right, and that belief in God is incorrect. Therefore by making judgements of right and wrong, you have morals. By upholding morals, you have a faith of your own. Atheism. I don't care if it tells itself that it "isn't really a belief". You'd be really naive to accept that.

__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

This is what we call having a mind warped by religion.

Dykovo translation:

I can't comprehend the existence of God, so there musn't be one.

Lets not start with that please...Dykovo, Andaras - are those what you call proper refutations??

__________________


CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

:confused:

Uhm.. is it the difference between 'Raise Dead' and 'Resurrection'?
Yeah, resurect costs more MP and brings you back to full health :p.

Then I apologize in advance for posting this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZmknvOB4I)

If you're going to post a link to a hymn, at least make it a good one... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYPpGqBUTHg)

Haha, this thread has epicly failed in its purpose so badly.

reminds you of evolution doesn't it? :headbang:

Dykovo translation:



Lets not start with that please...

__________________


CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
No, I think the truth is that no human brain can comprehend a reality without it's own consciousness, does that make religion correct? Of course not, it just means your pre-frontal cortex is too small and your adrenaline glands are too big.

Dykovo translation:



Lets not start with that please...Dykovo, Andaras - are those what you call proper refutations??

Yes

If you're going to post a link to a hymn, at least make it a good one... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYPpGqBUTHg)

I would agree, but the one I posted was relevant for the time and location post-wise.

Dykovo translation:



Lets not start with that please...Dykovo, Andaras - are those what you call proper refutations??

That would require proper arguments. Seriously, you're making us look bad.

But you believe that atheism is right, and that belief in God is incorrect. Therefore by making judgements of right and wrong, you have morals. By upholding morals, you have a faith of your own. Atheism. I don't care if it tells itself that it "isn't really a belief". You'd be really naive to accept that.
Values! Not morals! Really important distinction there. As much as I generally dislike the consequences of utilitarianism (particularly in economics), you don't need a system of morality to establish a system of value judgement. Value can be entirely self-oriented without an assertion of belief as long as it is acknowledged that the self is real and extensions of that reality are objective gains.

Well since you don't believe anything, you can't present an argument, because you are neither for or against Christianity. See how it doesn't make sense?

I can say that I'm an a-person, or a nonperson, if you like. Heck, the definition of the word means that "I'm not a person", or I "lack a person".

Haha but that doesn't mean its true!

But you believe that atheism is right, and that belief in God is incorrect. Therefore by making judgements of right and wrong, you have morals. By upholding morals, you have a faith of your own. Atheism. I don't care if it tells itself that it "isn't really a belief". You'd be really naive to accept that.

__________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
What?? Ok really, so you're saying it does not make sense that I'm not choosing sides? Really, according to you you're either fór or agáinst Christianity?
And again, you CANNOT beleive that "a-theism" is right, it is simply the absence of faith, what's so hard about that?? It says nothing about other people's views, nor about reality. Just that the person has no faith in a supreme being. Dyavoko's translation doesn't look that bad, it looks like just because you cannot comprehend this, we MUST have a beleif, although that's completely against the basic meaning of the word.
Where the hell did you got from that I "beleive" that there is no God? That's not the same as not having the beleive a God exists, the first is a standpoint from 1 side, and the latter is a neutral standpoint.

Actually Narnians' view is one I have encountered many a time from Christians, there minds are so warped into thinking everything is about religion that they cannot comprehend that atheism is a negation of religion entirely. Instead they see 'atheism' as just another religion, as a competitor for converts like Islam or Hinduism. It's a perfect example of how religion stultifies a persons thinking process.

No one has suitably refuted this yet:

Atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.

I don't care whether it calls itself "the lack of belief". Because if that were true, then if you are an atheist, you can't state whether God exists or not, whether you exist or not...or whether what you're saying with your own mouth is right or wrong.

Why? Because apparently you can't state a belief in anything.

But we all know Atheism is truly a BELIEF as intorable as the ancient ones, because you're all standing here arguing for what you believe is right. :rolleyes:

___________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Dykovo translation:

I can't comprehend the existence of God, so there musn't be one.

Also, one problem with your translation, I'm an agnostic atheist, which means that while I do not think that there is a god or gods, I do acknowledge the possibility, where as you seem to be unable to understand that it is possible to go through life without any set belief system.

Lack of belief ≠ belief

No one has suitable refuted this yet:

Atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.

I don't care whether it calls itself "the lack of belief". Because if that were true, then if you are an atheist, you can't state whether God exists or not, whether you exist or not...or whether what you're saying with your own mouth is right or wrong.

Why? Because apparently you can't state a belief in anything.

But we all know Atheism is truly a BELIEF as intorable as the ancient ones, because you're all standing here arguing for what you believe is right. :rolleyes:

___________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It's not about what I or any other person thinks, it's about looking at reality and science and coming to the overwhelming conclusion that a religious God cannot possibly exist. May a deistic God exist? Like a 'cosmic force' or whatever? Maybe but such a being wouldn't be 'good' or 'evil' because it would be about interfering in human affairs as a personal God does.

No one has suitable refuted this yet:

Atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.

I don't care whether it calls itself "the lack of belief". Because if that were true, then if you are an atheist, you can't state whether God exists or not, whether you exist or not...or whether what you're saying with your own mouth is right or wrong.

Why? Because apparently you can't state a belief in anything.

But we all know Atheism is truly a BELIEF as intorable as the ancient ones, because you're all standing here arguing for what you believe is right. :rolleyes:

___________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
Knock knock, that is NOT what atheism means!!! How stubborn can you be?? You simply refute the meaning of a word, but with nothing to support that refution, thus we DO NOT have anything to refute in return.

What you are talking about is anti-theism, the denial of the existance of a God. Thát's a beleif, a-theism is nót because a-theism is the absence of a beleif. Do you know what that means, "absence"? It means that something is not there, in this case, beleif in a God. The lack of a beleif is not equal to having a beleif.

The ónly thing we're talking about here, is semantics, nóthing else.

No one has suitably refuted this yet:

Atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.
Yes, we have.
I don't care whether it calls itself "the lack of belief". Because if that were true, then if you are an atheist, you can't state whether God exists or not, whether you exist or not...or whether what you're saying with your own mouth is right or wrong.

Why? Because apparently you can't state a belief in anything.

But we all know Atheism is truly a BELIEF as intorable as the ancient ones, because you're all standing here arguing for what you believe is right. :rolleyes:
I reiterate:
Lack of belief ≠ belief

It's not about what I or any other person thinks, it's about looking at reality and science and coming to the overwhelming conclusion that a religious God cannot possibly exist. May a deistic God exist? Like a 'cosmic force' or whatever? Maybe but such a being wouldn't be 'good' or 'evil' because it would be about interfering in human affairs as a personal God does.

Knock knock, that is NOT what atheism means!!! How stubborn can you be?? You simply refute the meaning of a word, but with nothing to support that refution, thus we DO NOT have anything to refute in return.

What you are talking about is anti-theism, the denial of the existance of a God. Thát's a beleif, a-theism is nót because a-theism is the absence of a beleif. Do you know what that means, "absence"? It means that something is not there, in this case, beleif in a God.

The ónly thing we're talking about here, is semantics, nóthing else.

Yes, we have.

I reiterate:
Lack of belief ≠ belief

I predict that TNC will ignore or misinterpret all 3 of these.

a religious God cannot possibly exist.

Aha. There you go. A belief that a religious God cannot possibly exist. So lets put it this way, you've just proven it yourself:

Atheism is the belief that God can't exist. Its just as intolerable as the ancient beliefs.

The ónly thing we're talking about here, is semantics, nóthing else.

Me???? Who's the one bashing the semantics thing to the ground?? I've already proven, from the mouth of another, that atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.

___________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Yes, we have.

I reiterate:
Lack of belief ≠ belief

Belief in lack of supernatural forces or deities = belief?

A question for the OP.

Is Jesus our shepherd? Shall we not want?

Aha. There you go. A belief that a religious God cannot possibly exist. So lets put it this way, you've just proven it yourself:

Atheism is the belief that God can't exist. Its just as intolerable as the ancient beliefs.

___________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

It's not intolerant, it's just correct. Because if a personal God exists then their can only be one God, which means either only ONE faith (Christianity, Islam etc) is correct, or God is schizophrenic.

Aha. There you go. A belief that a religious God cannot possibly exist. So lets put it this way, you've just proven it yourself:

Atheism is the belief that God can't exist. Its just as intolerable as the ancient beliefs.



Me???? Who's the one bashing the semantics thing to the ground?? I've already proven, from the mouth of another, that atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.


Now you're just mixing up Atheism with Andaras's personal beliefs.

Aha. There you go. A belief that a religious God cannot possibly exist. So lets put it this way, you've just proven it yourself:

Atheism is the belief that God can't exist. Its just as intolerable as the ancient beliefs.



Me???? Who's the one bashing the semantics thing to the ground?? I've already proven, from the mouth of another, that atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.

1. AP's view is not shared by everyone.
2. Did you read the rest of his post?

Aha. There you go. A belief that a religious God cannot possibly exist. So lets put it this way, you've just proven it yourself:

Atheism is the belief that God can't exist. Its just as intolerable as the ancient beliefs.
And guess not? What Andaras sad is not what a-theism actually is! THAT'S what this is all about, you're saying that a-theism is something what a-theism simply not is, per de-fi-ni-tion.

Me???? Who's the one bashing the semantics thing to the ground?? I've already proven, from the mouth of another, that atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.
You have not proven anything, what Andaras sad is something closer to anti-theism, and anti-theism is NOT equal to a-theism.

Like Geniasis says, you're mixing up pérsonal beleifs from an individual with a-theism.

Because if a personal God exists then their can only be one God, which means either only ONE faith (Christianity, Islam etc) is correct, or God is schizophrenic.

You're right. Only one faith is correct. Otherwise it'd be illogical.

It's not intolerant, it's just correct.

Ah. Its not "intolerant", its just correct. And I assume everything else is wrong? :rolleyes: That called an intolerant belief.

I'm going to say it again - and you've done well proving this to me and yourself. Atheism is a belief AS INTOLERABLE as all the others.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Now you're just mixing up Atheism with Andaras's personal beliefs.

How is are my statements on the matter any different from standard atheism? It seems to me you others are just glorified agnostics. I think those who take the soft-soft approach to religion cowardly.

What Andaras sad is not what a-theism actually is!

Oh? Is Andaras not properly representing atheism then?

___________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

You're right. Only one faith is correct. Otherwise it'd be illogical.



Ah. Its not "intolerant", its just correct. And I assume everything else is wrong? :rolleyes: That called an intolerant belief.

I'm going to say it again - and you've done well proving this to me and yourself. Atheism is a belief AS INTOLERABLE as all the others.

And again you are confusing one person's belief (AP is anti-theist) with atheism.

To prove you wrong, here is what I 'believe' (for lack of a better term):

I do not think that there is a god or gods, but I acknowledge the possibility of his/her/its existence.

You're right. Only one faith is correct. Otherwise it'd be illogical.



Ah. Its not "intolerant", its just correct. And I assume everything else is wrong? :rolleyes: That called an intolerant belief.

I'm going to say it again - and you've done well proving this to me and yourself. Atheism is a belief AS INTOLERABLE as all the others.
O my GOD man!!! Again, you're linking the personal beleifs of ONE person to a-theism as a whole. But a suprise to you: they're not alike!
How is are my statements on the matter any different from standard atheism? It seems to me you others are just glorified agnostics. I think those who take the soft-soft approach to religion cowardly.
Since you do not show a lack of faith, but rather the reversal of it, anti-religious, going against what religion says and claiming the opposite. It's about the claiming, a-theism, thus the absence of faith, simply does not claim anything. You on the other hand, do, and so does The Narnian Council.
Oh? Is Andaras not properly representing atheism then?

No, he isn't.

How is are my statements on the matter any different from standard atheism? It seems to me you others are just glorified agnostics. I think those who take the soft-soft approach to religion cowardly.
It seems TNC isn't the only one who does not understand what atheism is.
Oh? Is Andaras not properly representing atheism then?
No, he isn't \/
And again you are confusing one person's belief (AP is anti-theist) with atheism.

To prove you wrong, here is what I 'believe' (for lack of a better term):

I do not think that there is a god or gods, but I acknowledge the possibility of his/her/its existence.

You're right. Only one faith is correct. Otherwise it'd be illogical.
Which of course raises the question, why do so many belief systems exist if only one God exists.



Ah. Its not "intolerant", its just correct. And I assume everything else is wrong? :rolleyes: That called an intolerant belief.

I'm going to say it again - and you've done well proving this to me and yourself. Atheism is a belief AS INTOLERABLE as all the others.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia
Well if that's the line your going to take, then it probably is 'intolerant', but you seem to misunderstand that it's intolerance of religion does not place it on the same level as religion, it's intolerance is comes from the fact that it's simply the natural acceptance of believing something only because it's scientifically true (seeing as science is only source of truth). You make the false assumption that atheists feel they are competing on the same ground with religions, we are not, we are above such.

Atheism is a belief as intolerable as the ancient ones.
*Does so*

The idea of "No God" assumes no subordinance, yeah? Okay. So under this system, the only basis for objectivity in truth is one of perception. There's no sense of an external arbiter of truth - the only thing we can be absolutely confident in is that which is directly perceived. Under such a system, the "self" cannot claim objective accuracy, as correctly pointed out by Descartes (who relies on God to escape from the Evil Demon). Consequently, humility is institutionalised and the Atheist is logically bound to acknowledge the possibility of his own incorrectness, thereby creating a tolerating world view.

I am, of course, assuming systematic reasoning on the part of the Atheist. Most present day atheists are unwilling to relinquish the ghost of logical positivism.

Anyone seen that movie called Constantine with Keanu Reeves? That was a pretty cool religious film.
That movie was a piss poor attempt to make a move on a REALLY awesome comic book. As soon as I saw the previews I KNEW they were gonna screw it up, and I was right!

And again you are confusing one person's belief (AP is anti-theist) with atheism.

Andaras calls himself an atheist. Is he doing a bad job? Obviously so.

To prove you wrong, here is what I 'believe' (for lack of a better term):

Unfortunately m8, thats something you believe. Thats why there's no other word for it in English. You have a belief.

I do not think that there is a god or gods, but I acknowledge the possibility of his/her/its existence.

So why don't you say that the Christian God could possibly exist, or the Islamic Allah could possibly exist? Stay true to your word. Don't pick and choose. If you do - you're practicing an intolerant belief.

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

How is are my statements on the matter any different from standard atheism? It seems to me you others are just glorified agnostics. I think those who take the soft-soft approach to religion cowardly.

I'm a Christian, actually. So I'm afraid you can't lump me in with those "cowardly agnostics".

As far as I am concerned you cannot be an atheist without being an anti-theist, to not have such a view requires the atheist to ignore reality.

Andaras calls himself an atheist. Is he doing a bad job? Obviously so.
Yes, he is, AP is an anti-theist regardless of what he says
Unfortunately m8, thats something you believe. Thats why there's no other word for it in English. You have a belief.
Not really
So why don't you say that the Christian God could possibly exist, or the Islamic Allah could possibly exist?
I'm certain that that is exactly what I did say.

As far as I am concerned you cannot be an atheist without being an anti-theist, to not have such a view requires the atheist to ignore reality.

However, if you are an anti-theist you are not an atheist, so you would be wrong AP.

ALRIGHT.

Great Dawn. Dyakovo.

Answer these two simple y/n questions.

1. Do you believe that atheism correct?

If you answer yes, then congratulations! You've just ascribed to a belief.


2. Do you believe that Christianity is wrong?

If you answer yes, then hooray! Your belief is now intolerable!

Atheism is a belief as intolerable as all the others. You'd be thick as hell not to see that.

____________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

How is are my statements on the matter any different from standard atheism? It seems to me you others are just glorified agnostics. I think those who take the soft-soft approach to religion cowardly.
Agnosticism != apathy. I am explicitly agnostic, in that I do not believe that an objective definition of God exists, and this is a position I hold with conviction in direct opposition to Religion and Atheism alike, not that I simply hold in absence of all other belief. These guys are probably closer to Atheism, in their assertion that God "probably does not exist", than they are to Agnosticism.

As far as I am concerned you cannot be an atheist without being an anti-theist, to not have such a view requires the atheist to ignore reality.
As far as I'm concerned, a-theism is the opposite of theism, like a-symmetrical is the opposite from symmetrical. Thus, an absence of faith. You would rather be an anti-theist, denying something, technically beleiving in this case that a certain God or supreme being does not exist, even though that's far from sure. You have chosen sides, as far as I know a-theism means you do not choose sides, you're neutral on the matter.

That's what I'd kinda suspected, but functionally, is there much difference between not assuming consent and requiring active petition? I mean, in said court case, let's assume that the courts require that even if bail is paid, I have to go and ask to be let out. Isn't that effectively the same as an explicit assumption that I don't want to be let out unless I say otherwise, even if someone pays the bail fees?

What I'm getting at is that if Jesus really did take everyone's sins, why not just let us go? If the bail is paid, why can't we just walk out? Is it because it's assumed that we won't want to be let out?

Oh! There's a thought. Maybe you're appealing to the courts to allow the bail to be accepted? That is, you're asking God to allow Jesus's sacrifice to go through?

Or am I getting too bogged down in the court metaphor? :D
I think you're getting way too bogged down.

Personally speaking, since Jesus Himself wasn't clear on the matter, I believe that Christ redeemed us ALL and only those who deliberately choose evil are condemned. That said, the only way to the Father is through Christ.

ALRIGHT.

Great Dawn. Dyakovo.

Answer these two simple y/n questions.

1. Do you believe that atheism correct?

If you answer yes, then congratulations! You've just ascribed to a belief.


2. Do you believe that Christianity is wrong?

If you answer yes, then hooray! Your belief is now intolerable!

3. Atheism is a belief as intolerable as all the others. You'd be thick as hell not to see that.

1. Atheism isn't wrong or right it just is.
2. I do not think that christianity has it completely right, but I have no way of knowing, so it could be right.
3. And again you fail.

Religion is never a personal matter to those who profess it, no matter what they say to the contrary. Innate within religion is the belief that you can't just keep it to yourself, you must convert the infidels, and this isn't just a voluntary thing, religious people, especially in America, are constantly trying to force religion into schools and onto the people who aren't yet intelligent enough to see through religion; children.
Really? Damn, I must be behind on my quota then, I can't remember ANY TIME I've tried to convert ANYONE to ANYTHING (excepting getting them hooked on anime).

Of course, this is rich coming from YOU, Mr. Convert-everyone-to-Communism.

I think you're getting way too bogged down.

Personally speaking, since Jesus Himself wasn't clear on the matter, I believe that Christ redeemed us ALL and only those who deliberately choose evil are condemned. That said, the only way to the Father is through Christ.
But the Father and Christ are both just manifastations from the same being: God. It looks like a staircase, before God lets you near his true form, you first have to pass several other forms, Christ for example. Sounds logical, yes/no?

Agnosticism != apathy. I am explicitly agnostic, in that I do not believe that an objective definition of God exists, and this is a position I hold with conviction in direct opposition to Religion and Atheism alike, not that I simply hold in absence of all other belief. These guys are probably closer to Atheism, in their assertion that God "probably does not exist", than they are to Agnosticism.

Actually, I waver in between being an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist...

So why don't you say that the Christian God could possibly exist, or the Islamic Allah could possibly exist? Stay true to your word. Don't pick and choose. If you do - you're practicing an intolerant belief.


Most Atheists actually fall somewhere in this bracket. They lack belief in any gods - which is not equal to denying they exist.

To those of us that fit this categorisation, the kind of 'militant atheism' Andaras presents is just as much a statement of faith as the assertions of the religious... and is just as illogical to someone for whom the lack of belief is a form of skepticism.

If I ever find good enough evidence of god/s - I'll believe. No such evidence has been presented thus far, so I'm an Atheist.

There's nothing intolerant about that - I don't believe you're a squirrel either, and would take pretty strong evidence to be convinced otherwise. Or is that squirrel-intolerance?

Really? Damn, I must be behind on my quota then, I can't remember ANY TIME I've tried to convert ANYONE to ANYTHING (excepting getting them hooked on anime).

Of course, this is rich coming from YOU, Mr. Convert-everyone-to-Communism.

Whoa! Let's keep it clean here. Alright?

1. Atheism isn't wrtong or right it just is.

So save us the trash and simply say: its correct.

2. I do not think that christianity has it completely right, but I have no way of knowing, so it could be right.

Ah. If you have no way of knowing, and Christianity "could be right" - then you can now stop arguing against Christianity, because you have said:

"I have no way of knowing."

3. And again you fail.

Um...me? Oh...I thought you said you had no way of knowing, so you can't judge whether I'm right or wrong at all. So what makes you think you can say I 'failed'?

___________________


CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

However, if you are an anti-theist you are not an atheist, so you would be wrong AP.
You talk as if 'anti-theism' is a primary, or at least prominent idea, and I would never ever define what I believe as solely in opposition to something else, I'd never for example call myself solely an anti-capitalist.

Yes the rejection of religion is a part of my beliefs, but it's only a very small and rather insignificant part, and it's more of just an unintended outgrowth of those beliefs rather than a deliberate attempt to malign religion. Religious people think atheists are out to get them, but the truth is that in the face of the vast of complex scientific explanation religion itself looks ridiculously, it doesn't require people to make religion look stupid, all we need to do is place it next to science and religion crumbles.

As far as I am concerned you cannot be an atheist without being an anti-theist, to not have such a view requires the atheist to ignore reality.

You are an Explicit Atheist, my friend - and do not represent the consensus.

The reality is - we can't know for sure there is no god or gods, because there is always the logical escape route - to whit: there could be a god, I'm just looking in all the wrong places.

That's 'reality'. We can't even personally witness all the 'observable' reality there is. It would be hubris of the highest order to pretend we can know what exists within (or even, without) all the other 'observable' reality out there.

Really? Damn, I must be behind on my quota then, I can't remember ANY TIME I've tried to convert ANYONE to ANYTHING (excepting getting them hooked on anime).

Of course, this is rich coming from YOU, Mr. Convert-everyone-to-Communism.

:D

There is no god but Marx and Stalin is his prophet.

ALRIGHT.

Great Dawn. Dyakovo.

Answer these two simple y/n questions.

1. Do you believe that atheism correct?
Like Dyakovo sad, a-theism just "is", it's a description of a state of someone's mind. Nothing more. It cannot be wrong or cannot be right.



2. Do you believe that Christianity is wrong?
Hard if not impossible question, there are loads of different versions of Christianity. But lets talk about the basics then, the stuff they all have in common. It's simple, they can be all right, they can be all wrong, some things can be wright, some things can be wrong. I don't know, it could be anything, I'm not holding any opinion about it.
Atheism is a belief as intolerable as all the others. You'd be thick as hell not to see that.
Have you just ignored the over NINETHOUSAAAAAND (yea I hád to do that) posts concerning that??