NationStates Jolt Archive

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
Er, you're making the same mistake I made a little bit back, see, there's atheism and atheism (You can use soft and hard if you like). Soft atheism is an absence of faith. There is no faith there. It's not a belief at all. As an analogy, think of darkness. Darkness does not exist, it's just the absence of light. Cold does not exist either, it's just the absence of heat. Soft atheism is a non-belief, there's nothing there.

Now, HARD atheism is the belief that there is no God(s) period, end of statement. THAT is a belief as it cannot be proven one way or the other.

The other way to put it would be having no opinion vs. having an negative opinion.

Er, you're making the same mistake I made a little bit back, see, there's atheism and atheism (You can use soft and hard if you like). Soft atheism is an absence of faith. There is no faith there. It's not a belief at all. As an analogy, think of darkness. Darkness does not exist, it's just the absence of light. Cold does not exist either, it's just the absence of heat. Soft atheism is a non-belief, there's nothing there.

Now, HARD atheism is the belief that there is no God(s) period, end of statement. THAT is a belief as it cannot be proven one way or the other.

The other way to put it would be having no opinion vs. having an negative opinion.
You can call the latter (HARD) one just anti-theism ;)

As an analogy, think of darkness. Darkness does not exist, it's just the absence of light. Cold does not exist either, it's just the absence of heat.

Due to the prevalence of both darkness and cold, I thought it was the other way around.

So save us the trash and simply say: its correct.
If you insist, however, I stand by my statement of it isn't wrong or right, it just is.


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."
And you have no way of knowing whether or not it is right, so stop arguing for christianity.

Or, those of us with open minds could all go on discussing religion.


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'?
Easy, you stated that atheism was an intolerant belief, I showed you, as has GD at this point that it is neither a belief nor intolerant.

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?
I've always looked at it as of Christ is keeping the gate to the more exclusive parts of the club (Or, since I'm a Nevadan, the high roller areas). Everyone who hasn't been caught cheating is allowed into the casino to play and have fun, but you gotta have the invite to get into the high roller areas. :D


I'm sure I'm gonna get yelled at for this one.

The other way to put it would be having no opinion vs. having an negative opinion.

What has that got to do with it? They are both opinions. They are both beliefs. They are both intolerable - because holders of those opinions argue with anyone who believe differently.

Intolerable.

I'm witnessing a first hand account of it. From both "soft" and "hard" atheists.

Sheesh. Why is that so hard to understand?

_____________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Actually, I waver in between being an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist...
Fair 'nuff, but I'm of the view that the theist / atheist divide doesn't make sense in the concept of an underdefined god concept. How can you either believe or not believe in something if you don't have some notion of what it is?
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.
Again, fair 'nuff. It seems a bit hacky, but as I noted earlier, the whole redemption by divine sacrifice idea seems like a bit of a clever hack to me anyway, so who am I to judge? :D
Of course, this is rich coming from YOU, Mr. Convert-everyone-to-Communism.
Touche!

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.
Reality is what we know so far, and so far science has no discovered any evidence of God, so therefore he does not exist, at least not yet. If we in the future find scientific evidence to the contrary, then we should put our 'belief' in such a God in proportion to the evidence which supports it's existance.

But then again religion is not about believing based on rational discourse and evidence, it's about faith, and faith is by definition belief without evidence, something no one should pride themselves on.

Also, I need denied to existance of 'God', I simply said that science has completely destroyed the evidence for any of the (particularly Abrahamic) personal theistic Gods to exist.

Whoa! Let's keep it clean here. Alright?
*Grabs the Mr. Clean* Ok, ok. If you wait till after lunch I'll have my cleaning crew scrub the thread... They don't clean the classroom anyway so I might as well see if they can do this. ;)

Sheesh. Why is that so hard to understand?

Because you are mistaken, discussing religion does not demonstrate intolerance.

Due to the prevalence of both darkness and cold, I thought it was the other way around.
Not in science. That's why 0 K is absolute zero, there's no heat.

Not all of us need to be told how to live our lives.

I don't need religion, and no amount of Bible-thumping, Jesus mumbo-jumbo, or "family values" bullshit will change that.

I especially don't want a religion that espouses hatred towards those whom they don't understand or are afraid of...such as homosexuals.

Look, two gay people! :fluffle:

I see nothing wrong with that. This world could use some more love in it anyway.

Well, I'm off, g'night all.

What has that got to do with it? They are both opinions. They are both beliefs. They are both intolerable - because holders of those opinions argue with anyone who believe differently.

Intolerable.

I'm witnessing a first hand account of it. From both "soft" and "hard" atheists.

Sheesh. Why is that so hard to understand?
Because one is NOT an opinion! If you don't have it, you don't have it. My wallet is empty of money right now, that does not mean I believe that there is NO money period.

Because you are mistaken, discussing religion does not demonstrate intolerance.

"Discussing" religion? You're arguing your point - and arguing why I'm wrong. Thats intolerance, my friend. Don't be so thick. If you finally acknowledge that you truly are unaccepting of my belief, we might be able to get somewhere.

_______________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

"Discussing" religion? You're arguing your point - and arguing why I'm wrong. Thats intolerance, my friend. Don't be so thick. If you finally acknowledge that you truly are unaccepting of my belief, we might be able to get somewhere.
Intolerance is not discussing why you're wrong - it's asserting that I can't be.

Again, fair 'nuff. It seems a bit hacky, but as I noted earlier, the whole redemption by divine sacrifice idea seems like a bit of a clever hack to me anyway, so who am I to judge? :D
Like I said, this is probably the largest debate within Christianity as a whole so...

Touche!
Thanks, I rather liked it. :p

"Discussing" religion? You're arguing your point - and arguing why I'm wrong. That intolerance, my friend. Don't be so thick. If you finally acknowledge that you truly are unaccepting of my belief, we might be able to get somewhere.


But, I am accepting of your belief. You believe in the christian god, I have no problem with that.
The only thing that I have been arguing with you about, and saying that you are wrong about is your understanding of what atheism is.

And now I'm off...

unless I get sucked back in again

Because one is NOT an opinion! If you don't have it, you don't have it. My wallet is empty of money right now, that does not mean I believe that there is NO money period.

Then let me ask those people who have 'no opinion'.

Do you absolutely believe, with absolute certainty, that you have no opinion?

______________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Then let me ask those people who have 'no opinion'.

Do you absolutely believe, with absolute certainty, that you have no opinion?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Intolerance is not discussing why you're wrong - it's asserting that I can't be.

Look up a dictionary, m8.

Intolerance: unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs.


_____________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Look up a dictionary, m8.

Intolerance: unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs.


And which one of us (other than AP) has demonstrated any unwillingness to tolerate or respect your religious beliefs?

Okay I'm back

Then let me ask those people who have 'no opinion'.

Do you absolutely believe, with absolute certainty, that you have no opinion?
Yo. I'm not in either category of atheist, but I definitely "have no opinion".

Intolerance: unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs.
(Bolding mine)

See?

I'm really quite shocked to see how atheists can't see past their own noses, even when it comes to understanding their very own opinion.

They're opinion is intolerant of other opinions. It will reject opinions contrary to itself. It rejected me, my belief, and even my belief about atheism too. It thinks that people who criticize it, to make asserstions against it, or deny it are wrong.

I've witnessed it firsthand right here.

Atheism is just as intolerant as all the other ancient religions.

And with that - I must log off.
Aw. Come back soon!

I'm really quite shocked to see how atheists can't see past their own noses, even when it comes to understanding their very own opinion.

Their opinion is intolerant of other opinions. It will reject opinions contrary to itself. It rejected me, my belief, and even my belief about atheism too. It thinks that people who criticize it, or make assertions against it, or deny it are wrong to do so.

I've witnessed it firsthand right here.

Atheism is just as intolerant as all the other ancient religions.

And yes, I'm intolerant of other beliefs. So are you. I'm not foolish and thick enough to deny it. Its a plain fact.

And with that - I must log off. My conclusion is satisfied.
_____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

What did I miss?
Basically a discussion of why and where Atheism and religion conflict. Pretty big stuff, though we didn't really get anywhere.

What did I miss?

You can call the latter (HARD) one just anti-theism ;)
I think it's more useful to describe 'anti-theism' as the position that religious belief is harmful, unhelpful or generally A Bad Thing; rather than merely asserting 'there is/are no god/gods'.

Er, you're making the same mistake I made a little bit back, see, there's atheism and atheism (You can use soft and hard if you like). Soft atheism is an absence of faith. There is no faith there. It's not a belief at all. As an analogy, think of darkness. Darkness does not exist, it's just the absence of light. Cold does not exist either, it's just the absence of heat. Soft atheism is a non-belief, there's nothing there.

Now, HARD atheism is the belief that there is no God(s) period, end of statement. THAT is a belief as it cannot be proven one way or the other.

The other way to put it would be having no opinion vs. having an negative opinion.

The example I use is that we are all Atheists when we are born. Until we learn about 'god' and religion, until we are given names and concepts, we just don't believe. We (obviously) don't deny god/s... we don't even know what they are.

What has that got to do with it? They are both opinions. They are both beliefs. They are both intolerable - because holders of those opinions argue with anyone who believe differently.


Are you seriously trying to imply you have to believe something to be able to argue about it?

Why does The Narnian Council put down all the athiests?

"Discussing" religion? You're arguing your point - and arguing why I'm wrong. Thats intolerance, my friend. Don't be so thick. If you finally acknowledge that you truly are unaccepting of my belief, [I]we might be able to get somewhere.


Pointing out the flaws in your argument is not intolerant. You should thank us.

Then let me ask those people who have 'no opinion'.

Do you absolutely believe, with absolute certainty, that you have no opinion?


Whether or not I have an opinion isn't subject to belief.

Aw. Come back soon!

;) Well I hope to do so...I tend to get baited in by religious discussions!

_________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Their opinion is intolerant of other opinions. It will reject opinions contrary to itself.
That's a very strange use of the word 'intolerant'.

If I claim that grass is orange, and you claim that grass is actually green, my belief about the colour of grass is not 'intolerant' of your belief. They simply contradict one another.

Similarly, 'hard' atheism, as the belief that a god or gods do not exist, is not 'intolerant' of the belief that a god or gods exist. It merely contradicts it.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

-Galileo Galilei

Reality is what we know so far, and so far science has no discovered any evidence of God, so therefore he does not exist, at least not yet. If we in the future find scientific evidence to the contrary, then we should put our 'belief' in such a God in proportion to the evidence which supports it's existance.

But then again religion is not about believing based on rational discourse and evidence, it's about faith, and faith is by definition belief without evidence, something no one should pride themselves on.

Also, I need denied to existance of 'God', I simply said that science has completely destroyed the evidence for any of the (particularly Abrahamic) personal theistic Gods to exist.

Reality is not "what we know so far". That is "what we know so far"... a very different thing. For example - what we know could all turn out to be wrong... 'reality'; would be unaffected, but our knowledge of it would have to undergo some hefty revision.

'Reality' is everything that exists... everything that is 'real'. Since we don't KNOW everything that exists (hell, we keep being surprised by new types of beetle... we're pretty far from knowing everything that exists), we can't say for sure what is and isn't encompassed within 'reality'.

The example I use is that we are all Atheists when we are born. Until we learn about 'god' and religion, until we are given names and concepts, we just don't believe. We (obviously) don't deny god/s... we don't even know what they are.
And I still think that uncertainty creates a grey area between theism and atheism that kids fall into, as per the whole God = Steve scenario.

I'm really quite shocked to see how atheists can't see past their own noses, even when it comes to understanding their very own opinion.

Their opinion is intolerant of other opinions. It will reject opinions contrary to itself. It rejected me, my belief, and even my belief about atheism too. It thinks that people who criticize it, or make assertions against it, or deny it are wrong to do so.

I've witnessed it firsthand right here.

Atheism is just as intolerant as all the other ancient religions.

And yes, I'm intolerant of other beliefs. So are you. I'm not foolish and thick enough to deny it. Its a plain fact.

And with that - I must log off. My conclusion is satisfied.
_____________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I'm not intolerant of your opinion. It's your opinion. If I said you weren't allowed to hold such an opinion, I would being intolerant... but I'm not doing that.

What I am doing, is showing why the things you claim as facts, aren't facts. I question your evidence, and I point out the flaws in your conclusions - that is not being intolerant of your opinion.

Many great scientists were active members of their church, such as Galileo, Isaac Newton, ect.

Why does The Narnian Council put down all the athiests?

I think it's probably to try to score a point, but I'm not sure what the aim is supposed to be.

In effect, we aren't really arguing about theism v's atheism.. we are arguing against NC's stated version of what it means to be an Atheist. It's quibbling over definitions.

I think it's probably to try to score a point, but I'm not sure what the aim is supposed to be.

In effect, we aren't really arguing about theism v's atheism.. we are arguing against NC's stated version of what it means to be an Atheist. It's quibbling over definitions.

Well he's not helping to change you all.

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.

That could very well be a translation error, considering that the one I have would be (translated into English): "descended into the realm of death" and not hell (in which there is a difference, albeit no difference in Judaism IIRC).

295 posts in five hours? Jesus H. Christ!

Many great scientists were active members of their church, such as Galileo, Isaac Newton, ect.

Yeah and Galileo was almost executed for presenting facts to said church.

He figured living life was worth more than being right.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

-Galileo Galilei

Didn't that heretic get incarcerated and then die later under house arrest?

Doesn't he have a ridiculous name?

Yeah and Galileo was almost executed for presenting facts to said church.

Galileo was just a troll. And that "but it still moves" comment an egregious bit of link-whoring. ;)

Didn't that heretic get incarcerated and then die later under house arrest?

Doesn't he have a ridiculous name?

yes because he stated that the earth was not the center of the universe. Wow the christian was right!(sarcasm)

yes because he stated that the earth was not the center of the universe. Wow the christian was right!(sarcasm)

Wait... what?

He was right.

Anyway, I find these debates can be solved by typing in "Does God exist?" into google and clicking the 'I'm feeling lucky' button.

yes because he stated that the earth was not the center of the universe.

Against prevalent catholic dogma

Wow the christian was right!(sarcasm)

Yeah, and look what the christians did to him for it. You do realize that he was convicted of heresy

Yeah, and look what the christians did to him for it. You do realize that he was convicted of heresy

Be fair. He was a heretic.

Against prevalent catholic dogma



Yeah, and look what the christians did to him for it. You do realize that he was convicted of heresy

but he was right and he remained a christian.

Be fair. He was a heretic.

And that's not all.

"Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" my ass. That's puppet wanking!

And that's not all.

"Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" my ass. That's puppet wanking!

I believe Myrth did not take kindly to it either.

Galileo made some of the greatest scientific discoveries and you can't accept it cause he was a christian.

Well he's not helping to change you all.

Indeed. Telling Atheists they don't know what Atheism means isn't likely to cause mass revival.

Galileo made some of the greatest scientific discoveries and you can't accept it cause he was a christian.

Your logic remains impeccable, don't let the haterz get you down, Jesus will keep you strong.

Galileo was just a troll. And that "but it still moves" comment an egregious bit of link-whoring. ;)

Not to mention a copy of one of the fundamental principles of Discworld science.

Galileo made some of the greatest scientific discoveries and you can't accept it cause he was a christian.

What you do, is look at the evidence. That way - it doesn't matter what influences the 'scientist' in question has... because you base your conclusions on what they can SHOW, not on what they BELIEVE.

Well how come Isaac Newton's theories became laws while Darwin's yet to have anything but.

That'll stump 'em!

What you do, is look at the evidence. That way - it doesn't matter what influences the 'scientist' in question has... because you base your conclusions on what they can SHOW, not on what they BELIEVE.

Well how come Isaac Newton's theories became laws while Darwin's yet to have anything but.

Galileo made some of the greatest scientific discoveries and you can't accept it cause he was a christian.

Who are you talking to?

The first few and the last few posts in this thread look like spam to me. Could you recommend some passage of posts (quote them or give post numbers) that might actually be worth reading ? I mean, except as entertaining spam.

That'll stump 'em!
Aw, come on, play fair. That's just mean.

Well how come Isaac Newton's theories became laws while Darwin's yet to have anything but.

Newton's theories did not become laws.

In fact, we use the phrase "Newtonian physics" to express that Newton's "laws" of motion etc are useful approximations which do not fit observation in the detail we now have available. They are still useful, but if we called them "laws" in the religious sense we would never have been able to question them.

That'll stump 'em!

You took the bails off. To stump me now you will need to knock one of the stumps out of the ground.

It's a funny old game.

Well how come Isaac Newton's theories became laws while Darwin's yet to have anything but.

A 'law' in science is an archaic term for a theory that has become well accepted.

Newton's Laws are still theories, no matter what you call them.

A 'law' in science is an archaic term for a theory that has become well accepted.

Newton's Laws are still theories, no matter what you call them.

But... but.. the apple! How can you refute something so American as an apple? Especially when baked into a savoury pie.. which is what I am sure Newton did after being hit in the head by it. It's practically a Law.

Aw, come on, play fair. That's just mean.

Given the OP, this entire thread is mean. Having said that, I'd question the thought process behind putting up a Christian discussion thread on NSG, in fact I'd question it quite a bit and wonder if it was for real.

Given the OP, this entire thread is mean. Having said that, I'd question the thought process behind putting up a Christian discussion thread on NSG, in fact I'd question it quite a bit and wonder if it was for real.

Well, here's something from the first hit on Google for "tucker island"

Tucker's Island
There is no greater example of the effect Tide and Time has on the Jersey Shore than that of Tucker's Island. Like the legendary island of myth, this small isle is the Jersey Shore's Atlantis.

Once, it lay off the southern end of Long Beach Island, a separate isle known as Short Beach. The Tide, washing in and out of Little Egg Harbor Bay, slowly built up shoals that would connect Short Beach to Long Beach. Meanwhile, Time would see the small island's name changed to Tucker's Island and the creation of a small resort known as Sea Haven. Men would come to build a lighthouse and a life saving station, only to have Nature wash both into the sea. Finally, the Atlantic would claim the entire island.

hmmm.

A 'law' in science is an archaic term for a theory that has become well accepted.

Newton's Laws are still theories, no matter what you call them.

Laws are actually proved theories.

A 'law' in science is an archaic term for a theory that has become well accepted.

Newton's Laws are still theories, no matter what you call them.

Laws are actually proved theories.

A 'law' in science is an archaic term for a theory that has become well accepted.

Newton's Laws are still theories, no matter what you call them.

Laws are actually proved theories.

Laws are actually proved theories.

no, they are not. In fact, saying "laws are proven theories" when it comes to "Newton's Laws" has an even greater sense of amusement, as Newton's Laws have, as anyone who knows anything about science is aware, actually been proven....wrong.

I'm really quite shocked to see how atheists can't see past their own noses, even when it comes to understanding their very own opinion.
:rolleyes: We don't know what are own opinions are? Are you really that arrogant or are you just trolling?
Their opinion is intolerant of other opinions. It will reject opinions contrary to itself. It rejected me, my belief, and even my belief about atheism too. It thinks that people who criticize it, or make assertions against it, or deny it are wrong to do so.
No atheist has rejected you or your beliefs.
Your 'belief' about atheism is misinformed.
Feel free to criticize, make assertions against, and/or deny atheism, however if you do it on the factually incorrect basis, you will be corrected.
I've witnessed it firsthand right here.

Atheism is just as intolerant as all the other ancient religions.
What intolerance?
And yes, I'm intolerant of other beliefs. So are you. I'm not foolish and thick enough to deny it. Its a plain fact.
Ah, I see what it is...
Because you are intolerant of all other beliefs everyone else must be too.
:rolleyes:
And with that - I must log off. My conclusion is satisfied.
How so?

no, they are not. In fact, saying "laws are proven theories" when it comes to "Newton's Laws" has an even greater sense of amusement, as Newton's Laws have, as anyone who knows anything about science is aware, actually been proven....wrong.

QM and Relativity for the win?

Why does The Narnian Council put down all the athiests?
points \/
And yes, I'm intolerant of other beliefs. So are you. I'm not foolish and thick enough to deny it. Its a plain fact.
Ah, I see what it is...
Because you are intolerant of all other beliefs everyone else must be too.

Laws are actually proved theories.

Shouldn't you be in school now ? Or are you "sick" today ...?

Well how come Isaac Newton's theories became laws while Darwin's yet to have anything but.

There are no scientific laws.

There are no scientific laws.

There is no law without punishment!






Yeah I'm just making stuff up now.

What intolerance?
A better statement would be atheism can be as intolerant as religion.

Of course even then that statement has some massive problems as neither atheism or religion can be anything other than atheism and religion. PEOPLE are intolerant, their beliefs or lack thereof just mostly sit there.

Laws are actually proved theories.

Nope, no such thing.

If there was a "scientific law" in the strict sense of "law" ... what would be the punishment?

I think there is such a thing as a "law of nature" but it only defines what is possible and what is not ... and science attempts to find that "law" not make it.

I'm trying hard to be wrong here. Someone correct me please.

Pleeease?

There are no scientific laws.

None that are universally factual, at least. We still use things like Hooke's Law and Boyle's Law as gross generalizations useful in specific set conditions, but we know going into them that they aren't "true" and that their accuracy is limited by the conditions of the system.

Just like how you can get away with using Newtonian Physics at our level.

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

Or at least one of the reasons... :p

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

Since TI missed it the first time around...

None that are universally factual, at least. <SNIP EXTRANEOUS>
Exactly, thus there are no scientific laws.

None that are universally factual, at least. We still use things like Hooke's Law and Boyle's Law as gross generalizations useful in specific set conditions, but we know going into them that they aren't "true" and that their accuracy is limited by the conditions of the system.

Arguably, these are named "Laws" as a goad to other scientists.

A sort of "I'm totally right here. I have had the last word on this subject. Bring it!"

Even other scientists can be awed by great minds, and assume that anything which might be wrong about a theory has probably been covered already ... they need some goading to speak up and perhaps look foolish.

I'm trying hard to be wrong here. Someone correct me please.

Pleeease?
*Pulls out spay bottle and squirts Nobel Hobos* Bad! Bad Nobel Hobos! Stay off the couch! Bad!

If you want the harder stuff, go talk to an S&M Queen. ;)

A better statement would be atheism can be as intolerant as religion.

Of course even then that statement has some massive problems as neither atheism or religion can be anything other than atheism and religion. PEOPLE are intolerant, their beliefs or lack thereof just mostly sit there.

Exactly

Arguably, these are named "Laws" as a goad to other scientists.

A sort of "I'm totally right here. I have had the last word on this subject. Bring it!"

Even other scientists can be awed by great minds, and assume that anything which might be wrong about a theory has probably been covered already ... they need some goading to speak up and perhaps look foolish.

Eh, not really. They're mostly called laws because they were at one point considered to be true. Many of them stood the test of time til the advent of QM and Relativity, and others (like Boyle's and Hooke's) were understood to only be true under specific conditions (like having an ideal, non-interacting gas).

I'm trying hard to be wrong here. Someone correct me please.

Pleeease?
*Pulls out spay bottle and squirts Nobel Hobos* Bad! Bad Nobel Hobos! Stay off the couch! Bad!

If you want the harder stuff, go talk to an S&M Queen. ;)
Well, I'm not an S&M Queen, but here ya go...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/action-smiley-073.gif

*Pulls out spay bottle and squirts Nobel Hobos* Bad! Bad Nobel Hobos! Stay off the couch! Bad!

<Yelp!>

Did Jesus die for the sins of people not yet born ? Well, he must have, since we weren't born yet and he apparently died for the sins of at least some of us.

People not yet born do not exist. They do not exist in that we cannot show that they will ever exist. It might please me to think of my yet-to-be-born "firstborn son" but I might be run over by a bus tomorrow.

Now, aliens might exist. There is no good evidence that they do, but that's no different from people not yet born. Did Jesus die for the sins of small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri ?

I'll stay off the couch. Promise!

<jumps onto couch and sheds fur>

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/action-smiley-073.gif

<bites whip and won't let go>

<bites whip and won't let go>

Bad NH!
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/spank.gif

Eh, not really. They're mostly called laws because they were at one point considered to be true. Many of them stood the test of time til the advent of QM and Relativity, and others (like Boyle's and Hooke's) were understood to only be true under specific conditions (like having an ideal, non-interacting gas).

Have we given up on calling theories Laws now?

Having stood the test of time, do we refuse to consider that our present Laws may someday turn out to be mere approximations ?

I say we do not. We don't discard them or even discount them for being contingent on our future knowledge. But we do not treat Laws with respect, do not let our certainty blind us to the possibility we are wrong.

And that's the difference in meaning between a "Law of nature" and a "Law of God." The former is a strong conviction from within our knowledge, the latter obedience at the point of ... er, something kickass that we're afraid of. Burning sulphur, or being turned into a newt or something.

Bad NH!
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/spank.gif

Aaaahhh! I'm getting pain now!



I hope you washed that stick. I don't want the scars to get infected if that's all right.

Laws are actually proved theories.

Do you want your thread back?

<shakes fur off thread and holds it so the stain doesn't show>

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.

Yes, indeed. NSG comes to be quite predictable after a while.

<Yelp!>

Did Jesus die for the sins of people not yet born ? Well, he must have, since we weren't born yet and he apparently died for the sins of at least some of us.

People not yet born do not exist. They do not exist in that we cannot show that they will ever exist. It might please me to think of my yet-to-be-born "firstborn son" but I might be run over by a bus tomorrow.
However, we are dealing with a God that proclaimed Himself to be the Alpha AND the Omega. So if you subscribe to the theory of a multi-verse as I do, yes, Jesus did die for us all because He is everywhere in every universe where you DO have a son and in the one where you're road pizza.

Now, aliens might exist. There is no good evidence that they do, but that's no different from people not yet born. Did Jesus die for the sins of small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri ?
Damned if I know, no theology I know of covers aliens. I would assume that blue fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri might have been visited by Christ in the form of a blue fuzzy creature from Alpha Centauri who died for them in an appropriate manner.

Until we meet up with the blue fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri though and swap religious tales, it's very, very hard to say.

I'll stay off the couch. Promise!

<jumps onto couch and sheds fur>
Now we're gonna have to escalate to the rolled up newspaper and being shut in the bathroom!

I love my Jesus. So unique :)

I love my Jesus. So unique :)

Me too.

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.

*FLORT*

Damned if I know, no theology I know of covers aliens.

*ahem*
Tom Cruise/Danny Masterson/Issac Hayes/Chick Corea/Wil Smith......

*ahem*
Tom Cruise/Danny Masterson/Issac Hayes/Chick Corea/Wil Smith......

Let's not forget Rael and the Raelian movement. I occasionally have dinner with Rael (actually true).

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.Eminem?

I love my Jesus. So unique :)You have a latino boyfriend?

Eminem?

I don't know, man, that skinny wigger gets more and better tail then I get, and probably doesn't have to finance a '72 Corvette...and at least a few well regarded black artists seem to be able to at least tolerate him...

On second thought, no, you're right...if he went alone to a real broken glass neighborhood, he'd get skinned like a sable...

I'm not familiar with them, but it certainly makes more sense than he sent himself to hell for saving mankind.

Not for saving mankind, but to save mankind. Going to hell was a means to an end, not the result of an already-accomplished mission. Without going to hell, the sacrifice is incomplete.

I'm of the opinion that the Holy Spirit is the part of God that each of us is born with- a soul. Spiritually, we're all created in God's image, because the Holy Spirit is the divine spark that composes God's entire being, and we have that spark within us.

Actions that are in accordance with the will of God will be beneficial to the development of the Holy Spirit within us. However, ignoring the will of the Holy Spirit will result in its being diminished. In the end, however much we've chosen to listen to God will determine if there's enough of a soul left to return to Him. The return of the soul back into the larger being of God is what I believe heaven is.

I think that Jesus was a man in whom the Holy Spirit was fully realized. He was both fully human and fully God, because both are the same- there's no contradiction. The Holy Spirit is what makes us human and separates us from the animals. When Jesus's soul was fully developed, he was in tune with God and God's will. He got a hint of that water-to-wine power, too.

So. Jesus was fully God when he died. To God, death is hardly an obstacle. The closest Jesus ever came to sinning was when he violently removed merchants from a temple. Such an act of wrath might've diminished his Holy Spirit enough to warrant a waiting period of... about three days... before he experienced the resurrection that we all receive if we've lived good lives.

People who have lived bad lives have done so as the result of ignoring the will of God within them- a road that leads to unhappiness. When they die, they've fallen so far out of touch with their Holy Spirit that they do not return with it to God. Jesus, having an exceptionally strong spirit at the time of his crucifixion, was able to bring them back with him.

I love my Jesus. So unique :)

Presumably the people in Taiwan broke the mold after they made him.

However....What makes you say this.....

I love my Jesus. So unique :)

Your Jesus?

Not for saving mankind, but to save mankind. Going to hell was a means to an end, not the result of an already-accomplished mission. Without going to hell, the sacrifice is incomplete.
Meh, he supposedly took on all our sins to save us, because of which he went to hell, so really either or both together could be argued.
I'm of the opinion that the Holy Spirit is the part of God that each of us is born with- a soul. Spiritually, we're all created in God's image, because the Holy Spirit is the divine spark that composes God's entire being, and we have that spark within us.

Actions that are in accordance with the will of God will be beneficial to the development of the Holy Spirit within us. However, ignoring the will of the Holy Spirit will result in its being diminished. In the end, however much we've chosen to listen to God will determine if there's enough of a soul left to return to Him. The return of the soul back into the larger being of God is what I believe heaven is.
Never seen it presented like this before.

*FLORT*

It's what I do. :)

Your Jesus?

Yup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JFyIaybXbU)

Yup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JFyIaybXbU)

Sounds like an exercise in self-aggrandisement to me...

(& Johnny Cash>Marilyn Mason>Depeche Mode ;))

There are 25 pages in this thread. I assume that at least 20 of them are solely spam:p

There are 25 pages in this thread. I assume that at least 20 of them are solely spam:p

Well we did start at the bottom of the hill...

There are 25 pages in this thread. I assume that at least 20 of them are solely spam:p

Actually no, probably not, there was a rather lively discussion for a while.

Sounds like an exercise in self-aggrandisement to me...

(& Johnny Cash>Marilyn Mason>Depeche Mode ;))

I prefer Depeche Mode's actually, it's just that by chance Manson's is the one I clicked on.

Meh, he supposedly took on all our sins to save us, because of which he went to hell, so really either or both together could be argued.

It's really hard to say how Jesus took on our sins when he died, but I try to fit it into my "holy spirit=god, jesus=full spirit" theory.

Never seen it presented like this before.

I'm pretty sure I came up with the idea.
Why, do you think I could make any money off of it? ;)

I love my Jesus. So unique :)

I hate to break it to you, but my gran's got one, too.
Apparently, the company that made those things sold them to everyone as a "handcrafted, unique piece"... that's what you get for believing door-to-door salesmen, I guess.

It's really hard to say how Jesus took on our sins when he died, but I try to fit it into my "holy spirit=god, jesus=full spirit" theory.
:D
I'm pretty sure I came up with the idea.
Why, do you think I could make any money off of it? ;)

Preorder Bloodlusty Barbarism's Christianity for Dummies at Amazon.com today. ;)

I prefer Depeche Mode's actually, it's just that by chance Manson's is the one I clicked on.

For sure. It is a good song. I was talking in general though (but in retrospect I think I would Manson at the bottom).

:D


Preorder Bloodlusty Barbarism's Christianity for Dummies at Amazon.com todat. ;)

Oh, you're too kind... :D

*ahem*
Tom Cruise/Danny Masterson/Issac Hayes/Chick Corea/Wil Smith......
Scientology doesn't count! Besides, if I understand it correctly, their idea is that aliens created us, not about if aliens can be redeemed.

Scientology doesn't count! Besides, if I understand it correctly, their idea is that aliens created us, not about if aliens can be redeemed.

What the hell could redeem them, after the sin of creating humanity?
Ohhhhhh points for being deep. Someone buy me a drink.

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

Yes it is. It says "he decended into hell, then on the third day he rose again, in accordance with the scriptures, he then ascended into heaven."

What the hell could redeem them, after the sin of creating humanity?
Ohhhhhh points for being deep. Someone buy me a drink.

buys drink
buys another drink
hands over drinks

This is a place where christians can talk about issues and ask questions about the bible and other christian things.
Why is it that Christians are always the ones who feel the need to set up "Criticism-Free Zones"?

I've seen a million of these Christians-Only threads over the years, but I've yet to see a single Buddhists-Only thread, or even a Jews-Only thread. Pagans never seem to need these spaces. Atheists just make themselves at home in any old religious thread.

We've got a huge range of religions and religious orientations represented on these forums, yet it's always the Christians who try to wall off territory so they can talk about how Christian they are without contradicting views allowed.

This...

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

followed by this...

I have freedom of speech do I not?

is sigma fail.

Remind me what protestanism is?

You posted this...in a thread...where you presume to answer other people's questions about Christianity.

Jesus had to steal the keys of death and hell.

From the guy with the octopus head?

Jesus had to steal the keys of death and hell.

I thought stealing was wrong. What a terrible example to set.

I thought stealing was wrong. What a terrible example to set.

Indeed, thou shall not steal. Unless you are ninja jesus.

Yes it is. It says "he decended into hell, then on the third day he rose again, in accordance with the scriptures, he then ascended into heaven."Mind to point out the bible passage?

"Discussing" religion? You're arguing your point - and arguing why I'm wrong. Thats intolerance, my friend.

So disagreeing with something, or thinking it wrong, or arguing one's point in discuss...these things are intolerant?

Agreement is not the same as tolerance, and thus, thinking that someone is wrong does not mean you aren't willing to tolerate them.

There are many things that I think are wrong, that I am willing to tolerate. I am thus NOT intolerant of them, just in disagreement.

But by your definition, (thinking something wrong is intolerant), EVERY statement is intolerant of its opposite, and since one can't simultaneously agree with all things, ALL people and all statements are intolerant (by your definition), and so the term itself is meaningless.

This is a debate forum. People can discuss, even argue and disagree (gasp), but that is hardly intolerance.


Don't be so thick. If you finally acknowledge that you truly are unaccepting of my belief, we might be able to get somewhere.

_______________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

People can easily accept that you have a belief, but they don't have to agree with it. Its just disagreement.

Intolerance is different.

Mind to point out the bible passage?

Now, now, UB. Don't ask too many questions, you might disagree with something.

And in Narnia, that's intolerance.

You bigot.

This is a place where christians can talk about issues and ask questions about the bible and other christian things.Ok, first question: what do Christians base the assumption of YHVH's existence upon? Got any archaeological or historical evidence?

Now, now, UB. Don't ask too many questions, you might disagree with something.

And in Narnia, that's intolerance.

You bigot.Only those need tolerance by others who can find no acceptance by others. Not just in Narnia.

Only those need tolerance by others who can find no acceptance by others. Not just in Narnia.

Speaking of tolerance, are you now going to explain why there are liberal Jews and Judaism, in light of your blanket condemnation of Jews and Judaism?

How the hell did this thread get 27 pages!? Jesus I swear any thread with either God, Christian, Jesus, Atheism or similar words are guaranteed to have over 25 pages.

How the hell did this thread get 27 pages!? Jesus I swear any thread with either God, Christian, Jesus, Atheism or similar words are guaranteed to have over 25 pages.

Two points at seperate ends of the spectrum, well I'm sure it's not that hard to figure.

:D


Preorder Bloodlusty Barbarism's Christianity for Dummies at Amazon.com today. ;)

Christianity for Gods I think that should be.

You heard BB say we have a spark of Godhood in each of us, right? So it's a sort of "rediscover your inner child" self-help book.

If you're only interested in the dirty bits, see chapter 5 "How to have sex with your own rib." It's quite short, you could probably read it in the bookshop and save your money for the illustrated Kama Sutra.

Laws are actually proved theories.

So good it was worth saying four times?

And true...? Not even once.

As anyone who has a slight grounding in scientific methodology knows, you can't 'prove' a theory.

Two points at seperate ends of the spectrum, well I'm sure it's not that hard to figure.

But the OP didn't even have anything of substance at all which you could even discuss!

But the OP didn't even have anything of substance at all which you could even discuss!

Meh don't matter, I bet the thread is just a whole bunch of 'God does exist', 'ohhh no he doesn't', anyway.

I love my Jesus. So unique :)

You haven't read a lot of 'holy texts', have you?

Galileo made some of the greatest scientific discoveries and you can't accept it cause he was a christian.

Clearly, you missed the point. Galileo was only christian cause they would have killed him if he hadn't rescinded his proofs that the world was round.

How the hell did this thread get 27 pages!?

Mainly because people keep wandering in with nothing on topic to say, and expressing claims of surprise at the number of posts.

Perhaps.

Mainly because people keep wandering in with nothing on topic to say, and expressing claims of surprise at the number of posts.

Perhaps.

Heh, I always mix your name up with Gravlen, wtf how is this thread on page 27?

Heh, I always mix your name up with Gravlen, wtf how is this thread on page 27?

Well, it scored pretty well on one set of derailments by the Narnian delegates, who decided to argue about what Atheism 'means'... and who set out to redefine the word 'intolerant' to mean 'doesn't agree with everything I say'.

Clearly, you missed the point. Galileo was only christian cause they would have killed him if he hadn't rescinded his proofs that the world was round.

Wasn't it over heliocentrism

Wasn't it over heliocentrism

Yes, it was.

It doesn't matter if Galileo was christian or not, in science, personal opinions and beleifs are completly irrelevant. It's all about facts, emperical observations, data. There are no "sides" to be on in science.

Heh, I always mix your name up with Gravlen

Grave n Idle is an anagram of Die Gravlen. You might be onto something there ...

Yes, it was.

Yay!

Grave n Idle is an anagram of Die Gravlen. You might be onto something there ...

It's perfectly innocent, I tells ya!

It just means "the Gravlen", in German. And no one who speaks German could be bad, right?

It doesn't matter if Galileo was christian or not, in science, personal opinions and beleifs are completly irrelevant. It's all about facts, emperical observations, data. There are no "sides" to be on in science.

Exactly precisely and yay. A scientist's religion is of no more relevance than their sexuality or their taste in music, unless they try to make it part of their science.

If you continue to talk sense, I might drop my spam cutlass and do likewise.

Exactly precisely and yay. A scientist's religion is of no more relevance than their sexuality or their taste in music, unless they try to make it part of their science.

If you continue to talk sense, I might drop my spam cutlass and do likewise.

Ohh a cutlass for cutting spam, I want one!

Ohh a cutlass for cutting spam, I want one!

:( You didn't read the rest of my posts at all, did you?

It's a cutlass MADE OF spam, for taking over threads and drinking all their rum. Comesome cabin-boys will also get due consideration.

Ohh a cutlass for cutting spam, I want one!

Considering the amount of spam on this thread, you might want to use this...


http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8174/macheteco0.png (http://imageshack.us)

Clearly, you missed the point. Galileo was only christian cause they would have killed him if he hadn't rescinded his proofs that the world was round.

:confused:

I think it was more like he was Christian because there really wasn't any other option at the time? I'm sure he really wanted to be a Druid. ;)

I'd like to discuss the finer, more 'ligher' side of the christian faith

the death of jesus.....:D

anyone agree?

:confused:

I think it was more like he was Christian because there really wasn't any other option at the time? I'm sure he really wanted to be a Druid. ;)

Rangers are cooler.

I'd like to discuss the finer, more 'ligher' side of the christian faith
the death of jesus.....:D
anyone agree?

You'll do.

*bundles up somewhat scurvy cabin-boy*

Rangers are cooler.

Only in First Edition. They got 2 hit dice at first level and could dual wield without penalty.

Only in First Edition. They got 2 hit dice at first level and could dual wield without penalty.

Hey, sport. Your sig LOOKS too long. Sure it's eight lines, but just wrap a SIZE="1" around it, huh?

Hey, sport. Your sig LOOKS too long. Sure it's eight lines, but just wrap a SIZE="1" around it, huh?

*sigh* sig envy is an ugly thing. But very well. I hate to make people feel... well, inadequate :D

(j/k)

I'd like to discuss the finer, more 'ligher' side of the christian faith

the death of jesus.....:D

anyone agree?what does 'ligher' mean?

what does 'ligher' mean?
It's probably a misspelling of 'liger', which is the result of crossbreeding between a male lion and a female tiger, having features of both but generally being larger than either.

Mind you, I wouldn't know what this hybrid animal has to do with certain aspects of Christianity. I'm not too much of a theologist, I'm afraid.

It's probably a misspelling of 'liger', which is the result of crossbreeding between a male lion and a female tiger, having features of both but generally being larger than either.

Mind you, I wouldn't know what this hybrid animal has to do with certain aspects of Christianity. I'm not too much of a theologist, I'm afraid.

Oo-er. Gone from a Christian discussion topic into Liger Discussion. :p

I think he meant 'lighter'...

Hai. I don't understand why God didn't outlaw slavery. Since he let it happen and didn't denounce it and made specific laws enforcing it (i.e. you can't enslave Jews etc.) does that mean he endorses the concept? Does he let the zeitgeist of the time determine morality if it's so widespread?

Thank you.

Hai. I don't understand why God didn't outlaw slavery. Since he let it happen and didn't denounce it and made specific laws enforcing it (i.e. you can't enslave Jews etc.) does that mean he endorses the concept? Does he let the zeitgeist of the time determine morality if it's so widespread?

Thank you.

Jesus didn't *outlaw* slavery, possibly because it was obvious Empires would just continue with it. Instead he warned and then punished, the (7?) Plagues of Egypt.

Jesus didn't *outlaw* slavery, possibly because it was obvious Empires would just continue with it. Instead he warned and then punished, the (7?) Plagues of Egypt.
That was only about the slavery of the "chosen" people though. And Jesus never denounced the canon of the OT which makes regulations and rules and even enforces 'contractual' agreements for slavery. If we want to just take the Bible as God's word then slavery should still be legal. Same with the idea that after you rape someone you must marry them.

buys drink
buys another drink
hands over drinks

downs both quickly
drives home at dangerous speed

Christianity for Gods I think that should be.

You heard BB say we have a spark of Godhood in each of us, right? So it's a sort of "rediscover your inner child" self-help book.

If you're only interested in the dirty bits, see chapter 5 "How to have sex with your own rib." It's quite short, you could probably read it in the bookshop and save your money for the illustrated Kama Sutra.

Having sex with your own rib is surprisingly easier than it sounds.
*awkward silence ensues, shuffles towards door*

But seriously, the best parts of the book explain how once you actually do get in touch with that inner child, you can turn water to wine (or to beer, as someone mentioned earlier). This should boost sales considerably.

Jesus didn't *outlaw* slavery, possibly because it was obvious Empires would just continue with it. Instead he warned and then punished, the (7?) Plagues of Egypt.

Ten plagues.
God only punished slavery when it was the Jews who were being victimized. According to the Bible, that is.
Personally, I'm a bit picky and choosy when it comes to what I believe in the Old Testament. I think Jesus did away with the old laws, and I also think that most of the famous stories in the Old Testament are exaggerations or metaphors.

Ten plagues.
God only punished slavery when it was the Jews who were being victimized. According to the Bible, that is.
Personally, I'm a bit picky and choosy when it comes to what I believe in the Old Testament. I think Jesus did away with the old laws, and I also think that most of the famous stories in the Old Testament are exaggerations or metaphors.

I don't think old testament books are metaphors or exaggerations I think the old testament has some of the most amazing stories in the Bible and they show the true power of God.

I don't think old testament books are metaphors or exaggerations I think the old testament has some of the most amazing stories in the Bible and they show the true power of God.

http://russellsteapot.com/images/comics/2007/Image043.jpg

I don't think old testament books are metaphors or exaggerations I think the old testament has some of the most amazing stories in the Bible and they show the true power of God.

So, you believe that Job's bowels literally boiled? They reached an internal temperature of sufficient ferocity that he literally cooked inside?

No - of course not. It's euphemistic. He was nervous. You can tell it's not literal, because the story is nonsensensical if you take it literally.

Like making people out of dirt, or flooding the whole world five miles deep.

So, you believe that Job's bowels literally boiled? They reached an internal temperature of sufficient ferocity that he literally cooked inside?

No - of course not. It's euphemistic. He was nervous. You can tell it's not literal, because the story is nonsensensical if you take it literally.

Like making people out of dirt, or flooding the whole world five miles deep.

God's power is something we can't even fathom.

I have a topic for all the christians here. What do you all think about "The Bible Code?"

God's power is something we can't even fathom.

Irrelevent.

Just because 'god' could do something stupid and unrealistic, doesn't mean he would... or did.

It's not even an unusual method of biblical study - to accept as literally true only that which makes sense to be literal truth, is fairly standard practise.

The scripture says bats are a type of bird. The scripture suggests snails melt - and that's why they leave trails. There are geographic suggestions that the world itself is flat, and even balanced on four pillars. Obviously, these things are in the pen of the human writer, not the creative genius of a creator god.

Or, are you arguing that Job's bowels really DID literally boil?

I have a topic for all the christians here. What do you all think about "The Bible Code?"

It's not bad, but Tom Hanks was a horrendous casting choice.

It's not bad, but Tom Hanks was a horrendous casting choice.

Different thing. The DaVinci Code is a movie. Look up The Bible Code.

So God literally made a bet with Satan as to whether Job was really a righteous man or just being a good guy because he got big money and big prizes? And then got innocent people killed to test that bet?

Irrelevent.

Just because 'god' could do something stupid and unrealistic, doesn't mean he would... or did.

It's not even an unusual method of biblical study - to accept as literally true only that which makes sense to be literal truth, is fairly standard practise.

The scripture says bats are a type of bird. The scripture suggests snails melt - and that's why they leave trails. There are geographic suggestions that the world itself is flat, and even balanced on four pillars. Obviously, these things are in the pen of the human writer, not the creative genius of a creator god.

Or, are you arguing that Job's bowels really DID literally boil?

God created the heavens and the earth I don't doubt his power.

So God literally made a bet with Satan as to whether Job was really a righteous man or just being a good guy because he got big money and big prizes? And then got innocent people killed to test that bet?

Shows how much you know God told Satan he could do anything to Job EXCEPT kill him.

Evidence?

Look around that's your evidence.

God created the heavens and the earth I don't doubt his power.Evidence?

Shows how much you know God told Satan he could do anything to Job EXCEPT kill him.

So Job's children don't count as people? And what about the obvious problem of God making a bet. With Satan.

Job's wife and children were all killed.

True but that was a test.

God created the heavens and the earth I don't doubt his power.

So that would be a:
Yes, I am gullible and have little or no grip on reality?

:D

Shows how much you know God told Satan he could do anything to Job EXCEPT kill him.

Job's wife and children were all killed.

So Job's children don't count as people? And what about the obvious problem of God making a bet. With Satan.

It wasn't a bet it was a test for Job

So that would be a:
Yes, I am gullible and have little or no grip on reality?

:D

Yes what?

It wasn't a bet it was a test for Job

I'm jumping in late, I know. But why did Job need testing?

It wasn't a bet it was a test for JobWhy would a god who can see into peoples minds and hearts need a stinking test for?

So Job's children don't count as people? And what about the obvious problem of God making a bet. With Satan.

haSatan is God's flunky. But you'll almost never get anyone to admit that, because they don't read their Bibles.

Steenhuffel;13725839']I'm jumping in late, I know. But why did Job need testing?

Satan asked God to let him test one of God's most loyal followers, which God said was Job. Satan was allowed to do anything to Job except kill him.

Why would a god who can see into peoples minds and hearts need a stinking test for?

Maybe he's just malicious

Why would a god who can see into peoples minds and hearts need a stinking test for?

IT WAS A TEST FOR JOB!

Steenhuffel;13725847']Maybe he's just maliciousor one of the minor deities with limited capabilities. you know, the type that gets dissed by all the real gods.

Satan asked God to let him test one of God's most loyal followers, which God said was Job. Satan was allowed to do anything to Job except kill him.

But why did God think it was a good idea to let Satan torture some poor bloke at random?

It wasn't a bet it was a test for Job

So God tested Job at the prompting of Satan? I didn't know they were such buddies.

God: Look Satan, see that man over there, does all that I could wish for, and he's not even Jewish!

Satan: Oh, but he only does this because you shower him with gifts. Take away all that he has, and he'll become a heathen in no time. Wait, didn't you cast me out after I tried to to stage a rebellion against you after you created those pesky humans and tried to make me bow down to them, which is why I vowed to sucker them into joining me in Hell so I can torment them endlessly?

God: Oh yeah? Well, I'll show you! And him! Now, where did I leave those roving bands of mauraders....

Yeah, what a stand-up deity.

Yeah, to see what his faith was. But didn't your god know the result beforehand?

Yea but satan didn't.

IT WAS A TEST FOR JOB!Yeah, to see what his faith was. But didn't your god know the result beforehand?

or one of the minor deities with limited capabilities. you know, the type that gets dissed by all the real gods.

Ahhh... I see. So when Thor gave God a kicking, god let satan take it out on Job.

It all makes sense now.

So God tested Job at the prompting of Satan? I didn't know they were such buddies.

God: Look Satan, see that man over there, does all that I could wish for, and he's not even Jewish!

Satan: Oh, but he only does this because you shower him with gifts. Take away all that he has, and he'll become a heathen in no time. Wait, didn't you cast me out after I tried to to stage a rebellion against you after you created those pesky humans and tried to make me bow down to them, which is why I vowed to sucker them into joining me in Hell so I can torment them endlessly?

God: Oh yeah? Well, I'll show you! And him! Now, where did I leave those roving bands of mauraders....

Yeah, what a stand-up deity.

God new Satans plan would fall, so no they're not buddies.

Steenhuffel;13725856']But why did God think it was a good idea to let Satan torture some poor bloke at random?hey, that "god" killed off all of humanity except those retards on the big boat. how nice can such a "god" be?

hey, that "god" killed off all of humanity except those retards on the big boat. how nice can such a "god" be?

When God put Noah on the Ark The world was so violent God couldn't handle it so he destroyed them.

Yea but satan didn't.

god does seem very worried about what satan thinks. Is there some sort of homo-erotic hero worship going on here?

Steenhuffel;13725865']god does seem very worried about what satan thinks. Is there some sort of homo-erotic hero worship going on here?come on, god is a sissy. always hiding, you know...

Steenhuffel;13725865']god does seem very worried about what satan thinks. Is there some sort of homo-erotic hero worship going on here?

God doesn't care.

When God put Noah on the Ark The world was so violent God couldn't handle it so he destroyed them.Bad planning, huh? Maybe god wasn't such a good example for the folks...

come on, god is a sissy. always hiding, you know...

Yea he turned two people into pillars of salt, he's definetley a sissy.(sarcasm)

God doesn't care.God doesn't exist.

God new Satans plan would fall, so no they're not buddies.

Maybe Satan just wanted an excuse to torture a righteous person, since he knew he'd never be able to get him in Hell.

And why would God let Satan even meet with him? And why go brag about Job? Shouldn't he be above pride?

And again, why let Satan kill innocent people in the name of the test?

come on, god is a sissy. always hiding, you know...

No wonder Aphrodite won't let him near her wardrobe any more

God doesn't exist.

We'll find out who's right when you die.

God doesn't care.

So why the test?

Steenhuffel;13725879']So why the test?

Satan Gave Job a test. Not God.

Steenhuffel;13725882']So your all-powerful god isn't?

It says no where in the Bible God is Nice

When God put Noah on the Ark The world was so violent God couldn't handle it so he destroyed them.

So your all-powerful god isn't?

Satan Gave Job a test. Not God.God wanted Satan to give Job a test. Obviously God did not know all about Job. Hence the test.

God wanted Satan to give Job a test. Obviously God did not know all about Job. Hence the test.

Can I not use metaphors around you guys?

Yeah, to see what his faith was. But didn't your god know the result beforehand?Yea but satan didn't.

So now satan, not god is the one who calls the shots?

Why would god allow satan torture his most loyal follower for no reason (god knew what the result would be so the test was pointless)?

Either god is an evil bastard or satan is the one who is actually in charge.

It says no where in the Bible God is NiceIf he is not nice, there is no need to worship him.

If he is not nice, there is no need to worship him.

He's nice to those that follow his rules.

So now satan, not god is the one who calls the shots?


When God allows it.

He's nice to those that follow his rules.

Job wasn't following his rules?

This is getting ridiculous..

Job wasn't following his rules?

Ha! Shows how much you know about the Bible! Job was one of God's most faithful followers.

This is getting ridiculous..

I know imagine if you were in my place.

Ha! Shows how much you know about the Bible! Job was one of God's most faithful followers.
*Facepalm*

I know imagine if you were in my place.
If he were in your place he were ridiculous. True.

If he were in your place he were ridiculous. True.

Ha! you made a funny! Good Job!

He's nice to those that follow his rules.Job wasn't following his rules?Ha! Shows how much you know about the Bible! Job was one of God's most faithful followers.


So your definition of being nice includes killing off someone's family (or at least allowing them to be killed off)?

This thread is in it's 33rd page and going strong? Amazing...

going strong, going nowhere. as always.

TI is amusing though...

This thread is in it's 32nd page and going strong? Amazing...going strong, going nowhere. as always.

going strong, going nowhere. as always.

This was supposed to be a place for CHRISTIANS to discuss verses.

So your definition of being nice includes killing off someone's family (or at least allowing them to be killed off)?

God didn't kill Job's family. Satan did.

TI is amusing though...

Anything siggable yet?

God didn't kill Job's family. Satan did.

But God let him do it. He literally told him that he could do anything to Job, except killing him. He enabled him.

This was supposed to be a place for CHRISTIANS to discuss verses.And? Am I not the best of Christians? And do I not know the verses?

This was supposed to be a place for CHRISTIANS to discuss verses.

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate who posts in the thread. You wanted discussions of christianity, you got it.

Also I don't want you to miss this, so reposting
He's nice to those that follow his rules.Job wasn't following his rules?Ha! Shows how much you know about the Bible! Job was one of God's most faithful followers.


So your definition of being nice includes killing off someone's family (or at least allowing them to be killed off)?

Anything siggable yet?

HUH?

God didn't kill Job's family. Satan did.

He allowed it.