How does Christianity REALLY effect you... How does someone being a christian effect you? Besides those people that won't leave you alone while walking down the sidewalk or in the mall or whatever. Those people get on my nerves as well.
Printable View
How does Christianity REALLY effect you... How does someone being a christian effect you? Besides those people that won't leave you alone while walking down the sidewalk or in the mall or whatever. Those people get on my nerves as well.
It is natural to desire that the rest of the world believe as you do. Similar beliefs validate your own. The opposite is also true. The questions become "why do so many people believe so differently from myself? How is it that they see the same world that I do and yet draw different conclusions?" An attempt to change someone's view to your own is an attempt at validation of your own beliefs.
I'm not asking anyone to believe as i do. not once have i done so on here. I am just wondering how we effect you.
I don't want creationism taught in schools.
It turns my stomach to think of some creationist lying to its kids about what we are and where we comes from.
I almost had a creationist idiot as a vice president because christians voted for mccain not in spite of but because she was his running mate
Two of my best friends can't get married because christians think they own the country
I don't like ignorance
I really loathe willful ignorance.
@Xaquaria, Your answer is pretty silly. I understand that it's the conventional, politically correct belief (and applicable in a lot of areas) that forcing your beliefs on others is a form of seeking security. It's not applicable here. A lot of atheists really don't give a fuck what other people believe as long as they keep it to themselves. Christianity doesn't do that by virtue of what it is. It is a mind parasite and you know it as well as I do.
No where in my post did I use the word force. What other purpose is there to telling someone else your beliefs if it is not the desire to show them your own perspective? Loathing ignorance only applies to this situation if you believe another's perspective is inferior to your own. If your goal was simply to keep others from imposing their beliefs on you, there are countless easier ways to accomplish that goal, first among them being simply do not talk to those people.
Christianity is a complex system that controls and is wielded by many forces. If nothing else, you are showing your willful ignorance about the complex nature of what you claim to oppose.
fair enough about the use of the word 'force'. I felt that it was implied. At any rate, if I could force the facts that we all know about the world on them without bringing my other beliefs into it, I would in a heart beat. It would be doing everyone a favor. I wouldn't think twice about it.
I do believe that the perspective of creationism is inferior to that of science. I've been straight up about that one more than once. So I do believe that creationists are ignorant. Perfectly applicable use of the word. Everybody that gets it knows that they're ignorant. People that believe that the earth is flat are ignorant.
But I didn't say that my goal is to not have them impose their beliefs on me. As I said, my concern is mainly for the abuse that they inflict on their children and on people that they don't like. If they accepted evolution and started supporting gay marriage then I wouldn't be half as aggressive as I am towards them. I still think that the sky daddy thing is ridiculous but I have weed so I suppose they can have their sky daddy if they really need him that bad.
When was the last time creationism was taught in school. actually it is against the law to teach that in school, is it not?
Your friends (i assume are gay) can get married in several states.
not to make this political, you really think Obama was a better choice lol
Then why come to R/S knowing that you may run into people that believe in some from of religion may be sharing their beliefs?Quote:
A lot of atheists really don't give a fuck what other people believe as long as they keep it to themselves.
I'm aware of the diversity of it. There are a lot of different types of christians and not all of them supported sarah palin. Around half of them are creationists though and there's not much subtlety to understand about that. Why waste the time on something that's wrong?
It's not a symmetric situation. I'm on the superior end of it. Sucks for them.
Are you saying you are superior to those who believe in creationism?Quote:
I'm on the superior end of it. Sucks for them.
Intelligent Design is creationism. A lot of teachers don't teach evolution or do a bad job of it. The discovery institute is one of the most vile organisations on the face of the planet.
So they should have to move to get married? fuck yourself.
Better than some dumb bitch that thinks the earth is 6,000 years old and that being able to see russia gives her foreign policy experience? Are you serious?
I'm a religious person. Do you have to believe in god to be religious now? This forum is about debating religion. Get over it.
last time i checked, you can get married in any state and it be legal in the state that you live. My wife and I got married in Jamaica and it is legal here in the US. I know a couple who got married in Mexico, DR and Canada. so no they don't have to move to get married. If it was so important to them, then going to another state wouldn't be an issue.
Very few schools actually teach any kind of creationism. most of those that do are private schools.
I would rather have Palin and McCain in office then a socialist who is tied up with Acorn and those like Bill Ayers...
You are a religious person? what religion are you?
Oh and by the way? why the foul language? can we not have a civil discussion?
Kind of funny how i tend to here about how we (those who believe in some from of religion) are so rightous but yet some of you continue to make comments like this.Quote:
My knowledge of the natural world sure is.
Irrelevant. I don't think that my state would recognize it but even if it did, that's not the issue. The issue is that they shouldn't have to do anything any differently than you do.
Great. So it's okay to abuse your children as long as you pay a private "school" or home "school" them. I'm at ease now.
It's pretty clear that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to what is and is not socialism. Politics is dirty business and both sides are fucked up. At least Obama/Biden are intelligent enough to understand basic scientific facts that I would expect a 15 year old of average intelligence to be able to grasp without too much difficulty. Palin is just a creationist moron and the only reason mccain picked her is to satiate the creationist morons that make up the bulk of the working class republicans in the south.
I believe in the wonder of the universe and the fundamental humanity of humans. Do I really need to stick a name on it for you? I am an athiest though. There's some buddhism in there and less taoism though I respect that as well. I even respect gnostic christians.
And I don't consider "fuck" to be foul. It's a word. I use it as I see fit. You expressed the belief that it was good enough that my friends could travel to another state to get married. That's your belief. It's my belief that people that feel that way can fuck themselves. I expressed my belief.
Who said anything about abusing your children?Quote:
Great. So it's okay to abuse your children as long as you pay a private "school" or home "school" them. I'm at ease now.
I actually think it is kind of funny that you are getting so mad. I really don't care what you actually think and some of your answers were actually what I was expecting to hear based off the first question. I just can't believe how disrecpectful and mad one can get so quickly...
They are only ignorant if they don't know of the arguments for the belief that the earth is round. If they do know those arguments and still believe in a flat earth then they are not ignorant but simply hold a different perspective. Said another way, I could just as easily call you ignorant of the reasons why one would believe in a flat earth.
That's what we're talking about isn't it? Teaching children creationism?
I'm actually not as mad as you think I am. Child abuse, misogyny and making people that aren't heterosexual second class citizens do make me a little mad though. Those ideas don't deserve respect. Do you think they do?
If they understand the arguments for a round earth and they don't accept it, than they are stupid. I don't feel bad saying that because I don't say it lightly. I may say it a lot but if you look, you'll see that I say it about very few things. The big bang for example is preeeeettttyyy solid but i'm not going to call somebody stupid for not believing in it if they understand the arguments for it. It's not air tight enough to call a fact.
Evolution and a round earth are straight up facts. No intelligent person could understand the arguments for them and not accept them. I don't care what their IQ is.
You only believe these things because your particular world view is rigid and unyielding. This is not neccessarily a fault, it is but one perspective. There are many things that you may not know of that go in to a decision to believe a thing besides mere facts.
My apologies if I missed understood you for being mad. There is a big difference inbetween abusing a child and a teacher teaching a child something you do not believe in. I don't believe that sex ed should be taught in school but it happens. You may have a law suit on your hands against the school system if in fact it is a public school.
Also, I don't have a problem with gays getting married so don't throw me into that group. Sure the Bible teaches against it but what business is it of mine. i'm not the one to judge because I know I am not perfect myself.
The Bible states, those without sin cast the first stone.
I do know that if they get married in a state that allows it, then it will be legal in the state they live in. If something was that important to me, I would do whatever it took to get it done.
My wife's best friend is a guy. He is gay, she has known him for a long time and guess what, he has become a really good friend of mine as well. i don't look at homosexual's as "second class".
AS far as creationism goes, I believe in the Bible. I believe what it says. Correct me if I'm wrong but you believe in science. You believe what science says. I don't condone you for that so why condone me?
You are mad that people think homosexuals are second class but from what it sounds, you think Christians are second calss. What's the difference?
I have no fundamental problem in believing things beyond facts. Real and honest facts are few and far between. Only believing in facts would be a sparse and empty world view, would it not? I do have a fundamental problem with believing something in contradiction to facts to the extent that one would be compelled to force it on a child.
Our beliefs are a big part of what make us what we are. Mutually agreed upon "facts" are what allow us to function as a cohesive society. Those "facts" not being in agreement with real facts can turn into bad news real quick.
My apologies for lumping you in. I jump the gun sometimes.
As for the whole creationism vs. reality thing, boxing a child into a set of narrow beliefs is abuse. You do not know who they are well enough to make that decision for them: no one does.
As for the symmetry of the situation that you seem to be implying, again, it doesn't exists. People say that comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges. They are right. Prove to me that creationism is real. I can even have an open mind about it. Give me a factual proof that the biblical creation happened. You can't?
I can give you a logical proof that evolution happened but you are not open minded enough to listen to it. A lot of scientists didn't want to believe it but the facts are soooooooo overwhelming that they had to accept it because that's what scientists do: accept facts.
So literal biblical creation happened or evolution happened. Which one is it? The one with overwhelming evidence or the one that comes from a book that you only believe half of anyways?
What you claim to be arguing for and what you appear to be arguing for are at odds with each other. You seem to be claiming that you are against forcing belief onto someone else, especially when a large majority is doing it, and yet you expound the virtues of accepting consentual facts. You even put the word facts in quotations which seems to allude to the impermanent and socially subjective nature of the word. Which is it, do you think the minority should accept the majority's authoritative proclamation of fact or not? I have to say, what it sounds like to me is simply a realization that your belief system has become the majority and you feel that if you don't stamp out the minority as soon as possible, they may regain a foothold.
I am open minded to listen, not saying i will accept it.
I used the word 'fact' twice. Once in quotes and once without it. I'm not expounding the virtues of accepting impermanent and socially subjective "facts" either. I'm parroting the observation that they are what makes a society a society. Do you disagree? There seems to be a pretty strong case for that but I'm of course open to a good argument to the contrary.
What I am expounding is the necessity that these impermanent and socially subjective "facts" match up with the immutable and physical facts when such facts are known. The latter category is not at all subjective.
On the whole though, I do think that, while they are necessary, there are too many "facts" and that they get in the way when we hold on to them too tightly or there are too many of them. Just a few will do and it should be known that they are subjective.
Immutable and objective (as being the opposite of subjective) are words that the majority uses to give gravity to the facts they would compel the minority to accept. There was a time when the existence of god was an immutable fact, and that may easily come again. Like I said, you follow a particular world view rigidly enough as to convince you to take at least some of your beliefs for granted as absolute and infallible. This strikes me as odd, because believing in science the way you seem to is completely opposed to the ideal scientific perspective, which is that anything could be true, and one must constantly test the world around them in order to arrive at the most internally consistent and encompassing assumptions as possible. There is a limit to what your belief system can include and so you stop, and declare your level (on at least a few subjects) the pinnacle and that none should go further.
I don't deny that facts create society and actually this could be used as the crux for my personal world view. What I deny is that the society you wish to live in is superior to the one others wish to live in.
I have to dismiss that. If somebody wants to go further than evolution by natural selection and come packing an argument for it, I would be thrilled. Every honest, scientifically minded person would be. It would be a new non-trivial fact. We love those. Evolution would still have occurred though as that is a fact. It would be a new explanation for it that complemented our current understanding of the Neo-Darwinian model.
Do you think that literal biblical creationism is even close enough to that to warrant giving it the time of day?
I don't mean to offend you but I get the feeling that I'm arguing with something of a solipsist here in that you seem to be implying that objective facts do not exists outside of a cultural context.
EDIT: Also, I reject the comparison of the statement that asserting physical fact as immutable and objective is at all comparable to asserting that theological beliefs are immutable and objective. One is necessarily objective regardless of if people believe it or not and the other is necessarily subjective.
I'm not implying, I am arguing exactly that, although I don't call myself a solipsist. find a culture with no words for scientific method(to be cliche, a backwoods tribe) and tell me if they can even formulate an idea about evolution or electromagnetic force, let alone decide if they believe in them or not. The scientific concept of Evolution does not exist to such a people because it has no bearing whatsoever on the way they live their lives.
This I can agree with. Long after the physical plane has faded away, god is.
Yes I know what natural selection is. I believe in adaptation (a dog growing a thicker coat of hair to survive colder winters after many years) but that is about it.
Christianity doesn't affect me. I consider it to be a bunch of misguided old stories for misguided people. Fortunately I also live in Britain which is a very secular nation (50% atheist and increasing), and these silly stories aren't forced upon anybody. So I really don't care, although I do sometimes despair of the foolishness of my fellow human beings.
Quote:
Christians Established First hospitals
Christians can be proud to know that they virtually invented hospitals. Christians early on began to take care of the poor and sick in their neighborhoods.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-55553285.html
Quote:Healthcare, Gravity and Chocolate. Gotta give'm some credit =PQuote:
tbh none of that is particularly due to Christianity, just Christians... I doubt Isaac had any theological reasons for discovering the laws of mechanics and calculus.
Yea I see what your saying. I just wanted an excuse to quote multiple things. It looks so pro, eh?
People that instantly reject me as a human being because I question their bronze-aged beliefs affect me.
And anyway, last time I checked, 75% of the US identifies as Christian. Do you understand the significance of 3/4 of the populations vote coming mainly from people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, science is the devil and Dick Cheney was the greatest president the united states has ever had?
It absolutely affects me, because I have to share a planet with these ignorant people.
So you have definitively proven that every single theist in the world is that bigoted? Well ain't that a kick in the pants. I always thought I was at least tolerant of those whose lifestyles I disagree with, but I guess because Roxxor says I'm automatically bigoted based on what I may or may not believe in (after all, how does he know what I believe?), it must be true.
Guess I should do the world a favor and commit suicide. NOT.
...You said WHO was ignorant, now? I mean, are you serious? Half the people who identify themselves as Christian (such as myself) don't even go to church, and could justifiably be classified as agnostic. Saying "I believe in the existence of God" does not make it compulsory that we also believe our planet was literally just born (when carbon dating can prove this planet is billions of years old); that the human population began with two people (as it would have required mass inbreeding, which causes mutations galore in our genetic code); or that people who don't believe what we believe are all heathens, going to hell and that we should pelt them with rocks every time we see them.
Seriously, people's hatred of theists is just as sad and misguided as the ever-common fear of arachnids: Only a minority of them are actually willing/able to hurt you. Just leave them the fuck alone.
I really don't recall typing "ALL Christians" or even alluding to that. Oh and hey, my post reflects that.
Learn to read, please.
So you doubt the existence of god yet identify as Christian? I call that stupidity. Clearly you have no understanding of the myth you choose to identify with else you would have realized that being unsure is not the point, blind faith is. Explain that one please.Quote:
...You said WHO was ignorant, now? I mean, are you serious? Half the people who identify themselves as Christian (such as myself) don't even go to church, and could justifiably be classified as agnostic. Saying "I believe in the existence of God" does not make it compulsory that we also believe our planet was literally just born (when carbon dating can prove this planet is billions of years old); that the human population began with two people (as it would have required mass inbreeding, which causes mutations galore in our genetic code); or that people who don't believe what we believe are all heathens, going to hell and that we should pelt them with rocks every time we see them.
Why don't you identify as Pastafarian as well? Surely the ideas are equal as neither is falsifiable.
And yes, noöne in the US likes atheists. They see us as inherently evil. Don't go making yourselves sound victimized here.
No, it is based on the fact that anyone who accepts a specific doctrine of the supreme as written by man as true is deluding themselves in the hope of personal gain.Quote:
Seriously, people's hatred of theists is just as sad and misguided as the ever-common fear of arachnids: Only a minority of them are actually willing/able to hurt you. Just leave them the fuck alone.
Regardless of whether you used the word "ALL", it renders your statement as a...what was that G word? Oh yeah, "generalization".
Learn to use the word "some", please, lest you make yourself out to be a generalizing ass.
Funny, I was about to say the same thing in regards to the fact that you don't know jack shit about Christianity - obviously - by asserting, in no uncertain terms, that there is only "one way" to believe in the Christian God. I guess there's no such thing as Catholicism, Protestantism, Methodism, Mormonism, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses...all of which represent a DIFFERENT take on the SAME religion.
WHO doesn't understand jackfuck about Christianity, now?
Ah, yes, the old "It's okay for the minority to hate the majority, but when it happens vice-versa, it's called discrimination" cop-out. Fuck off.
...Do I even need to comment? Obviously you are someone of the mindset that if a person identifies with one thing, they and ALL others identify with it must, somehow automatically, adhere to what whatever stereotypes you believe to be associated with them. Because basically, you're saying all religious people are out for power and dominance. Which is basically the same as saying that all parallelograms are rectangles.
Are you a complete idiot?
How the fuck is the statement "People that instantly reject me as a human being because I question their bronze-aged beliefs affect me." a generalization?
You. Those are ritualistic and clergy differences, the core of all is exactly the same EXCEPT for a few, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Everyone else believes that if you truly believe in Jesus as the son of God then you will have everlasting life.Quote:
Funny, I was about to say the same thing in regards to the fact that you don't know jack shit about Christianity - obviously - by asserting, in no uncertain terms, that there is only "one way" to believe in the Christian God. I guess there's no such thing as Catholicism, Protestantism, Methodism, Mormonism, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses...all of which represent a DIFFERENT take on the SAME religion.
WHO doesn't understand jackfuck about Christianity, now?
No, not really. Wtf? Not when the majority is wrong. When did I ever use the word 'discrimination'?Quote:
Ah, yes, the old "It's okay for the minority to hate the majority, but when it happens vice-versa, it's called discrimination" cop-out. Fuck off.
...Quote:
...Do I even need to comment? Obviously you are someone of the mindset that if a person identifies with one thing, they and ALL others identify with it must, somehow automatically, adhere to what whatever stereotypes you believe to be associated with them. Because basically, you're saying all religious people are out for power and dominance. Which is basically the same as saying that all parallelograms are rectangles.
Nevermind. You are an idiot.
Ah, personal insults. Really grown-up of you. I believe you've just shown me your mental age, if not your real one...
Hm. Well, gee. Let's see. You come waltzing into a thread wherein the OP asks for a reason why atheists have such a big problem with theists.
Theists are the subject.
Then you lay on a statement like that, which must pertain to - what else - the subject. So in essence, you're saying "Theists are people that instantly reject me as a human being because I question their bronze-aged beliefs affect me." Instead of elaborating, you just leave it at that? What the fuck are people supposed to think, other than that you're implying that ALL theists are "haters who don't like me, boo hoo hoo". Say what you mean and mean what you say, or, as they say on the internet, GTFO.
So first of all, when did I ever question that Jesus was the son of God? That much is universal for all sects of Christianity. I suggest you reread my post and show me, if you can, where I might have said "some Christians don't believe Jesus is the son of God". Then won't I look foolish?
All I said (if you remember) was that not all Christians are compelled believe - unquestioningly, anyway - the obviously bullshit aspects of the Bible, like the aforementioned Adam and Eve shit. What it sounds like to me is that you are actually advocating the rigidity and inflexibility of the Christian belief system. Some shit, huh? And here I thought atheists were actually pushing for a world in which theists would come one step closer to embracing that which can be explained logically. I guess not, eh? Because by your attitude, I can basically either believe in God and shun evolution, or vice versa, but not a little bit of both. Whose side are you on again?
Moreover, I can believe that God exists, that Jesus was His son, and all that whatnot, without having to believe every other thing thus written in the Bible...or any version thereof, for that matter. Can a book full of such fantastic, obviously unrealistic scenarios really be true, or is it more like a fictional book meant to teach people morals? That's for me and me alone to decide, and who the fuck are you to tell me that I'm somehow against my own religion for it?
You obviously have no clue what discrimination is, if you really have to ask that. Generalizing - which is something you've done oh-so-brilliantly, by the way - is a form of discrimination. Dunno if you knew that, but...now you know.
And if the majority wants to believe there's an all-powerful wizard man making all the decisions for them, that's their own goddamn business, not yours. So what if that all-powerful wizard man happens to tell them that homosexuality, for example, is wrong? As long as they don't go around openly calling gay people "faggots" and beating the tar out of them and whatnot, it does not directly affect you. So why the hell should you even care?
...Obviously because you're obsessive, but that's not the issue here.
So you disagree with them, and they disagree with you. Cry me a fucking river. If I got depressed every time someone disagreed with me, I'd have committed suicide long ago (or maybe not, since suicide is for the weak IMO). No matter what theists believe, they're no different from anyone else - no more inferior, and definitely no more superior. They still put their pants on one leg at a time. They eat, sleep, fuck, pay bills and die, like anybody else. If they silently shake their heads in disapproval at the (perceived) immoral things you do, why not take it in stride and say "Well, what's wrong for you may not be wrong for me" and go on about your life? Instead of pissing and moaning about it, as you seem to be so good at.
More juvenile insults...a sure sign of copping-out. A word of advice: Don't waltz into Extended Discussion thinking that all DV members are going to help back up your cockamamie, petty little generalizations based on your own personal experiences.
...Okay, so some of them will in fact back you up, but that will only serve to prove my point that some atheists can be just as arrogant, judgmental, and quick to blame the other side as some theists can be at times.
Notice that I used the word some. That's because even though a lot of atheists I know are complete dickheads, others are just swell people, regardless of what their belief system entails.
Lezen, angry white male.
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/jo...cain-angry.jpg
Here in Portugal supposedly over 90% of the population is religious but I suspect that among the younger generations the number is much much lower, I haven't seen anyone around my age express religious belief in ages. Every now and then I even test the waters by throwing in a joke about jesus or god and everyone laughs instead of getting offended.
So mostly I'm good. But I still feel ripped off from having attended to church when I was a kid/pre-teen.
Lëzen, your whole argument is stupid.
You don't know what the scientific process is. In science, there are ideas that are just outright trash and not worth the time of day.
So scientists don't take every idea that comes along seriously. Nor should they. That's a fact. So stop acting like they do.
I believe you are actually refering to my argument, and what I said was that that was the ideal scientific perspective. I said nothing about the process. Obviously one would get no where if they didn't build off of the assumptions that they have already made. They ideal scientific perspective, however, knows that they are assumptions and accepts nothing as immutable, or infallible. This perspective knows that anything can turn out to be completely different, even though it continues to operate on these assumptions. No scientist should be afraid of starting over from scratch.
I am indifferent as long as we don't go debating. If you start to debate then you are already going to hostile ground.
Everyone is free to believe anything they want if they need faith to have meaning in life.
No, I said that people that do that affect me. Those people are all Christian. It is not a generalization. Shut the fuck up.Quote:
Hm. Well, gee. Let's see. You come waltzing into a thread wherein the OP asks for a reason why atheists have such a big problem with theists.
Theists are the subject.
Then you lay on a statement like that, which must pertain to - what else - the subject. So in essence, you're saying "Theists are people that instantly reject me as a human being because I question their bronze-aged beliefs affect me." Instead of elaborating, you just leave it at that? What the fuck are people supposed to think, other than that you're implying that ALL theists are "haters who don't like me, boo hoo hoo". Say what you mean and mean what you say, or, as they say on the internet, GTFO.
It seems that people are saying that atheism is getting larger in America.But Atheism is a disease. Atheism is becoming more and more militant in their effort to deny God in the personal and public forum. This is a common tactic as was used by the homosexuals, feminists, and other anti-social groups looking to be normalized into mainstream society. These tactics are used mainly in America where they are protected and safe from retaliation. Or from behind a monitor, where they are hidden. They want no accountability to a higher power, or condemnation from fellow citizens so that they may live their life without the conscience that leads to feelings of remorse when they do things that go against our moral values. They aspire to support abortions, homosexuality, euthanasia. They are on the wrong side of most every issue that makes a country and society great.
:arrow: People vote based on religious beliefs
:arrow: Beliefs affect your communication and rapport with others
:arrow: Beliefs affect businesses (eg. hospital care, hostels, etc.)
:arrow: People will avoid certain care due to beliefs (eg. womens rights, blood transfusions, etc.)
:arrow: Children are very susceptible to being indoctrinated
This list could go on for a long time. The bottom line is, beliefs are a fundamental reason for how we and others behave.
~
Say what?
Faith is a disease,if any. Faith should be torn out from humans, banished into the fringe of existence and abolished. Rational mind is the cure that keeps that venom from reaching the heart. Too bad that most of the people have failed to notice the symptoms of poisoning.
Sounds awfully lot of something that religion has always carried with it. Inquisition, witch hunting, punishing those who think differently,silencing those who are questioning the religious institutes, cults who use people into their own ends, general manipulation and spreading of false knowledge. The list goes on forever. The common thing about all these is that they are all executed under the cloak of faith, which gives them an illusion that they have a right to judge others or that they have some kind of "pure morals". Like those could somehow give them the higher power and justification to do whatever they seem fit.
So based on this i.e the absence of homosexuals is the sign of a great society? I wonder what kind of society you are living in or even want to live. Atheists are not any more wrong than theists, since we are discussing opinions. You are merely making a lone decision that theists would have some kind of higher moral ground than atheists. You have no right to label any of those things as "wrong".
Anyway, in conclusion. I disagree with everything you have said this far. Simple and plain.
Ya screw those guys what have they ever done for society?
EDIT: This:
It is.
No, atheism is an ideological stance.Quote:
But Atheism is a disease.
No, I am pretty sure we're all still asking the same question: "Why should we believe that?" And you have yet to supply a coherent, reasonable answer.Quote:
Atheism is becoming more and more militant in their effort to deny God in the personal and public forum.
I can imagine, what with people like you being so intolerant and discriminatory against them. PS There is no god. I am not seeing a clash with reality here.Quote:
This is a common tactic as was used by the homosexuals, feminists, and other anti-social groups looking to be normalized into mainstream society.
Half of Europe is atheist. Do you know why?Quote:
These tactics are used mainly in America where they are protected and safe from retaliation.
You mean like you are right now? Where you sit, attacking several very large groups of people safe in the comfort of your home? Hypocrisy. Come back when you have a real argument.Quote:
Or from behind a monitor, where they are hidden.
Nope, we are just honest truth seekers mainly. You're acting like we go around spreading lies of hate and torture to convert people into an irrational belief...?Quote:
They want no accountability to a higher power, or condemnation from fellow citizens so that they may live their life without the conscience that leads to feelings of remorse when they do things that go against our moral values.
Women have the right to abort. It is their body, not yours.Quote:
They aspire to support abortions,
If gods hates homos, then why did he make them? Or is it because there is no god, and this irrational hate stems from a bronze-aged superstition of homosexuals?Quote:
homosexuality,
Let's let everybody suffer a cruel death, even if they don't want to. God told us it was right!!Quote:
euthanasia.
Such as...?Quote:
They are on the wrong side of most every issue that makes a country and society great.
Again, come back when you have a real argument. In the meanwhile I did lol at your idiocy.
What are you basing these accusations on? Where are you getting these ideals from?
Does it feel nice to not have to think for yourself? To be able to have a book to tell you everything to think and how to feel about issues?
Dogmatically follow these ideals and do not question them or your family and loved ones will disown you.
Or maybe you should disown these ideals and think for yourself for a moment - what are the justifications for these beliefs? Why should you dogmatically throw away your autonomy? You are an individual, after all.
You've made some grand accusations in this paragraph and have not given a single shred of justification. I hope you can, but I am dubious that you can conjure a justification that is born from your own conscious thoughts.
~
Typical ignorant comments from a bigot.
So you're against freedom and those who support it? You're against critical thinking?Quote:
They are on the wrong side of most every issue that makes a country and society great.
The irony is that these two things are what makes society great, and you've just attacked them. It's why you're free to be a bigot, why I'm free to criticise you, and because a lot of people used critical thinking skills I have the ability to write this on a computer right now, instead of us sitting in some jungle somewhere around a camp fire.
If we all used blind faith as a virtue, you'd almost certainly be dead of starvation or disease, and even if you weren't, we'd be stuck in a stone-age culture.
By "public", do you mean "government", i.e. public schools and courthouses? If so, then the reason for it is that government and religion should never ever be mixed. What do you think of putting the tenets of Islam on a federal courthouse wall or Satanic prayers being conducted by teachers and principals in public schools? See the problem?
Homosexuals are an antisocial group? They are a biological group. You really love to generalize, huh?
You don't get it. We don't think there is a higher power.
The percentage of prisoners who are Christian is a whole lot higher than the percentage of prisoners who are atheists. How do you explain that? Most atheists are pretty good people. It looks like you need to believe in a big ghost to act right, not that you actually do. We can act right without believing in an invisible ghost head hancho of the universe.
It is your religion that has you thinking those things are evil when the real damage to society comes from opposing those things. You want to increase the suffering in the world by going against them. First and second trimester fetuses don't have minds and therefore cannot suffer, homosexuality is a preference that is not chosen and that is not evil, and people who are in agonizing pain beyond hope of healing should not have to keep suffering. You are the one who wants to make pregnant women suffer, to make homosexuals suffer, and to make dying people in agonizing pain continue to suffer. Your religion deludes you into thinking being so terrible makes you morally superior. That makes it dangerous.
I find it interesting that someone is eager to label acts against a society or goverment as evil. Actually, if we could get a one week on this forum, when nobody would use concepts of good and evil, we would get a lot more sensible topics. How can people just go naming things "good" or "evil". They can be bad for you or they can be beneficial for you. Nothing to do with morals there.
I am really waiting for kingerman to reply.
Issues like the freedom of speech?
When has atheism ever been militant? There are books about atheism that you can choose to buy and read rationally and sceptically. Sometimes atheists go on TV and talk about their points of view. But are you really honestly saying that atheists try to force their beliefs on people by means other than discussion?
Two final questions:
1. How many christian preachers do you think there are?
2. How many atheist preachers do you think there are?
The answer's pretty obvious and so is the reason.
By the way, do you consider other religions diseases? They have opinions completely contrary to yours and Gods completely incompatible with yours. By your reasoning you would destroy all other religions apart from your own, I presume? This is called totalitarianism; most people think it's a bad thing.
My beef with christianity is it's political influence. I want to be sure that when I have kids, they are taught evolution and never hear the word Creationism in school. I want them to know about condoms and safe sex. If I have a daughter who gets pregnant and isn't ready to be a parent, I want her to know that they're nothing wrong with an abortion. If I have a child who's gay, I want them to have the same rights as everyone else. If someone believes in god that's fine, but I don't like when it gets tangled with politics. We don't live in a Christian country, the constitution is very clear that God has no place in government.
Let's start with homosexuality.I don't know why homosexuality is wrong. But one thing I can say is that when God made man and woman, He made them to fit perfectly together. Think about this, when two people of the same sex come together, they do not fit perfectly, one has to take on the opposite role or use some form of substitution. When you have one man and one woman, no substitutions are necessary; there's a perfect fit, and only God can create such perfection.
Your atheism is a choice.
I thank God for my Freedom and that you can make that choice.
What you need to know for future purpose:
"Him who come untoeth me,
I shall in no wise cast out".
Romans 8:1 "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing
with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expecation for the sons of God to be revealed".
I believe that you are important and for some reason this information is needed for the near future.Have confidence.
Let me clarify my words in a nicer manner "disease".No but it's It's lack of understanding and false thinking.
About Atheists being good people.I would say that most people become atheists as a result of a painful experience, or abuse. They cannot understand how God would allow this or that, or they can't relate to God because of their warped view of father-figures (or lack theory), etc.
Statistically, atheists are the most likely to have grown up without a father figure, and interestly, are the most likely living a unfullfilling life.They don't like the idea of someone holding them accountable for their actions.
Indeed. The odds that an imaginary entity can provide a solid foundation for a law system are near to zero. Especially, when the description of this imaginary being changes according what people want. I would rather have a drunken ass to make a law system, but there isn't real difference in the justification anyways.
They don't have fulfilling lives because the universe is meaningless. Atheists are intellectually coherent enough to not create a made up meaning just so that they can feel fulfilled.
Talking about statistics, did you know that the UK rate of atheism is 50% but the atheist prison population is 1%?
Christian morality my ass.
I thought he's in your pledges and on your dollar bills..?Quote:
We don't live in a Christian country, the constitution is very clear that God has no place in government.
Where are you getting your statistics from?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingerman
Those popped in nearly a couple hundred years after the constitution was written. Faggots in the government thought they'd slip it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
1 Corinthians 2:13-15
13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment.
Do we need to prove anything to you? He is not invisible to those who believe in him. His very Presence is with us every day. He is as real as our next breath. Just because you can't see him, doesn't mean he isn't real. He just isn't real to you. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You have to reach out for the truth in your spirit, with a sincere heart. On that day you will find him.
You are trying to understand from an intellectual point of view. We are Mind, body and Spirit. Some people are not aware of their spiritual side at all. Sad, because that is really the only one that counts. Your Body will decay as will the world knowledge you have gained, die with you. Where will you be then? Only those who have the Holy Spirit within them, will be raised to eternity. It is the Spirit within them that will raise them up. If you don't have it, do you know what happens to you? You need to find out.
If God wants me to believe in him why doesn't God show himself to me? Why does he keep providing me with evidence which contradicts his existence?
There is no such thing as eternity. I know what happens when I die yes; nothing. Same for you.
Seriously even for religion, 'infinite goodness for an infinite amount of time' sounds like a bit of a hyperbole.
emphasis mineQuote:
Let's start with homosexuality.I don't know why homosexuality is wrong. But one thing I can say is that when God made man and woman, He made them to fit perfectly together. Think about this, when two people of the same sex come together, they do not fit perfectly, one has to take on the opposite role or use some form of substitution. When you have one man and one woman, no substitutions are necessary; there's a perfect fit, and only God can create such perfection.
You don't know why homosexuality is wrong, and your only basis for claiming that it is wrong is that it's different? Of course heterosexuality is a perfect fit. Evolutionary Biology 101, maybe read the chapter on reproduction and the necessity for both the egg and the sperm.
Are you also indirectly stating that your god had no part in creating homosexuality? Would you like to say that Satan created homosexuality? I'm sure there are people here who would like to clear that up for you (myself included).
Do you hear that? It's the pot calling the kettle black. :shakehead:Quote:
Let me clarify my words in a nicer manner "disease".No but it's It's lack of understanding and false thinking.
I'd like to point out that what you said after "about atheists being good people" has nothing to do with whether they're good or not.Quote:
About Atheists being good people. ...
Where are you getting your statistics? Are you just hypothesizing? What makes you qualified to make such hypotheses? I can hypothesize, too. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, Christians are the ones that have abusive families or pitiful father figures.Quote:
... I would say that most people become atheists as a result of a painful experience, or abuse. They cannot understand how God would allow this or that, or they can't relate to God because of their warped view of father-figures (or lack theory), etc.
Statistically, atheists are the most likely to have grown up without a father figure, and interestly, are the most likely living a unfullfilling life.They don't like the idea of someone holding them accountable for their actions.
I am insulted that you think that the only people capable of living fulfilling lives are religious people. I would venture so far as to say that you probably think the only people capable of living fulfilling lives are Christians, or your particular flavor of Christianity. Life is what you make out of it, and an ancient book with archaic morals/values/ideas, in my humble opinion, should have no effect on it (unless you like living in ignorance, blissfully unaware of the true, natural beauty of the universe, untainted by the existence of a fictional despot).
--
Additionally:
What do you mean, "anti-social" group? If we did not have feminists, women probably still not be considered equal in today's society. Are you classifying feminists in the same category of "wrongness" as homosexuals? Because that's equally narrow-minded and insulting, and really flaunts your primitive ideas about the "ideal" society.Quote:
This is a common tactic as was used by the homosexuals, feminists, and other anti-social groups looking to be normalized into mainstream society.
Does anyone find this signature highly ironic?
Hah, sure.Quote:
Personally i feel that having faith allows us the greatest freedom in secular life, precisely because it leads to a genuine and complete detachment from any possible ideological or bigoted attitude.
I don't even understand what the logical argument is supposed to be there.
God didn't make anyone, evolution did. Only trial and error a hundred trillion times can make something perfect. That's evolution, not god. If god hates homosexuals, why did he make them?
Most atheists I know were made so from education. The more you know about science, the less religion makes sense. Where are you getting the stats that atheists don't have father figures? When responding look at the publisher of the study, christian studies are notorious for fudging numbers, find me a study done by a member of the academy of science.
The irony being that he claims faith makes him free from bigotry yet it actually the cause of his bigotry (or at least used to justify it)?Quote:
I don't even understand what the logical argument is supposed to be there.
Or that blind belief in something with no evidence gives detachment from an idea?
Who was it that said, "Good people do good things, bad people do bad things. For a good person to do bad things - that takes religion."?
Actually, Christians hardly affect me in my day-to-day life. Most of the Christians in Norway are the kind that believes in science and evolution and that there might be God-fellow somewhere. Just sometimes Jehovah witnesses or whatever knocks on your door and steals some time.
It's only on DV that I've seen real creationists.
Try coming to America, we're overrun with christians here. What do you think of people doing bad things in the name of Jesus? Bush for instance.
Yeah, I've noticed. It's kinda crazy. And I think the Jesus-excuse is about as bad as they get :P
But then again there's a lot of other things in the US that I disagree with.
Also, I have been there twice, but in California and New York. Not as many outspoken Christians there.
It's actually the same throughout most of Europe. It's a very secular continent except for a select few countries; most Americans hardly believe it.
Did you know I have the lost pages of the New Testament, the famous collection of letters made by great prophet Bullsshiattus the Second? He was the greatest of our Lords prophets. It says right here, written in the papyrys that God allows me, as one of his precious children, to rape every beautiful woman I meet and sacrifice their bloody hair to Him. It has also many interesting commandments.. :bowdown::bowdown:
I repeat : an imaginary entity. Your answer hasn't proof anything else but requirement of meaningless faith over a thing that has no rational reason to be true.
.Quote:
Let's start with homosexuality.I don't know why homosexuality is wrong
Maybe you don't know because it isn't? Think a bit of that. I have already said not to label things morally wrong because no human has no right to do so, since it is all subjective. There are just consequences. In addition, before you take the higher power argument, I remind you that just because the imaginary entity has said something in your head, it is just a human opinion.
There is no such thing as perfection. Quite simple really. If your god wanted homosexuality banned, why doesn't he just do like he did before? Just throw some fireballs from heaven to us sinners? Maybe because he has grown fond to homosexuals, maybe he is even bisexual himself? Or then again, he doesn't exist. Quite rational, isn't it?Quote:
But one thing I can say is that when God made man and woman, He made them to fit perfectly together. Think about this, when two people of the same sex come together, they do not fit perfectly, one has to take on the opposite role or use some form of substitution. When you have one man and one woman, no substitutions are necessary; there's a perfect fit, and only God can create such perfection.
Of course it is. So is your choice of being theist. I, however, don't want to willingly submit into a slavery. Chained by our mind, is that what you want? I am embracing the true freedom. Freedom of thoughts and freedom of mind. You are merely a pale comparison as long as you run on faith. My regrets.Quote:
Your atheism is a choice.
I thank God for my Freedom and that you can make that choice.
What you need to know for future purpose:
"Him who come untoeth me,
I shall in no wise cast out".
I really don't want a theists to judge my rational thinking. You go on faith, you don't think rationally. I think with my mind, I don't need to believe anything. So, without knowledge you cannot understand. Without reason and rational thinking, you can never know. Conclusion : I have a greater chance of being correct than you, since you entrust your decision on faith.Quote:
Let me clarify my words in a nicer manner "disease".No but it's It's lack of understanding and false thinking.
What a pathetic excuse. I don't see your logic here. ( Might be because you don't have a one). Again, we go with the "good people" stuff. Regardless, if I was ever hurt or gone through an abuse, it is far more probable that I would be praying my knees open. I would need some kind of "greater help" since I am weak and pathetic myself and low with my self-esteem. However, I am a very strong individual who doesn't bow to any imaginary entity. If he wants me to bow, then he has to make it. I have no fear of god or any other, so I think that is also inprobable.Quote:
About Atheists being good people.I would say that most people become atheists as a result of a painful experience, or abuse. They cannot understand how God would allow this or that, or they can't relate to God because of their warped view of father-figures (or lack theory), etc.
Statistically, atheists are the most likely to have grown up without a father figure, and interestly, are the most likely living a unfullfilling life.They don't like the idea of someone holding them accountable for their actions.
You are right in one thing, though. I don't want anybody else accountable of my actions, since I am free person and I carry the responsibility of my actions. In contrary to the many religious groups who justify their actions with gods or whatever. They sicken me. Every mortal is responsible of his own actions.
Säälittävä ihmisriekale.
I find the lack of understanding argument very strange. Have you ever read Origin of Species? How about A Brief History of Time?
First of all, thank you for completely ignoring my earlier post and then just repeating the arguments I defeated. I will attempt another round of this.
As for the "perfect fit" thing, homosexuals have two holes and two hands with ten fingers each. Use your imagination. I don't see the relevance of your argument any way. An orange doesn't fit perfectly in your mouth. You have to be inventive and either cut it up or peel it. Are oranges the work of Satan?
Explain how belief is a choice. How can one choose to believe something that truly seems illogical to him? Assertion is not the same argument. Back up what you are saying. Can you choose to believe that hamsters invented the airplane?
You forgot to say, "Excuse me while I change the subject." I would also like to see proof of your tangential argument.
So, you assume atheists are really theists having temper tantrums with their eyes closed and hands on their ears and going, "La la la la la, God is not really there! I don't acknowledge God!" Do you think there is even one person in the world who honestly doesn't believe God exists?
I challenge you to answer my questions and counter my points this time. If you don't, I am going to know why.
Proof that you do not think for yourself.
I think what was said about oranges is a perfect counter-example. Are you able to recognize that fact though?Quote:
But one thing I can say is that when God made man and woman, He made them to fit perfectly together. Think about this, when two people of the same sex come together, they do not fit perfectly, one has to take on the opposite role or use some form of substitution. When you have one man and one woman, no substitutions are necessary; there's a perfect fit, and only God can create such perfection.
Furthermore, do not make the gross prejudice that homosexual couples try to emulate heterosexual couples; it only demonstrates your ignorance and closed-mindedness.
Consider that people can love each other without trying to label or categorize their gender types. Consider that two women or two men can have a relationship without feeling the need to emulate a stereotypical relationship.
Wrong.Quote:
Your atheism is a choice.
Everyone is born Atheist.
You chose to believe in God. The onus is on you to prove to yourself that God exists. It is not for us to recognize that God exists. Nor can you prove that God exists but to yourself.
Just like an imaginary friend. It is a dogmatic leap of faith.
But what do we call those people that live their lives in accordance to something that is only real to them?
How are you free if God has decided everything for you to think and do?Quote:
I thank God for my Freedom and that you can make that choice.
What you need to know for future purpose:
"Him who come untoeth me,
I shall in no wise cast out".
You have already admitted that you do not know why you think the morals you think.
You have already admitted to not having an individuality.
Thus, how are you free?
A perfect slave is one that believes that they are free but still does the work.
In response to every one of your quotations, I will counter with another that you must accept - from the same chapters. If you truly believe that you must adhere to one part of the bible, you must do so to the rest. But I will be more specific for you now.Quote:
Romans 8:1 "I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing
with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expecation for the sons of God to be revealed".
:arrow: Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Contradiction - if Jesus is the Lord, why is he born from a seed of flesh?
:arrow: Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Self-explanatory.
:arrow: Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Faith supersedes the law. Thus, you can do unlawful things that are still aligned with God (eg. kill abortion doctor's is a big one, but how about killing homosexuals? or oranges?)
:arrow: Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Wrong - Adam and Eve never existed. A simple browse through a fossil museum will illustrate this.
As a conclusion of you quoting a chapters from Romans, you must also adhere to the fact that all humans descended from the same two people (which is wrong by fact), that doing unlawful deeds is justified if done so by faith, that women are only good for sex, and that Jesus is a God but also a man at the same time which is an obvious contradiction.
I could quote more for you - from the same book - on request.
Interesting thing to say considering you do not think for yourself and admit to that.Quote:
Let me clarify my words in a nicer manner "disease".No but it's It's lack of understanding and false thinking.
Wrong. It is quite the opposite.Quote:
About Atheists being good people.I would say that most people become atheists as a result of a painful experience, or abuse. They cannot understand how God would allow this or that, or they can't relate to God because of their warped view of father-figures (or lack theory), etc.
As researched by psychologist Lee A. Kirkpatrick and Bowlby;
"...certain aspects of adult religiosity, particularly beliefs about God and having a personal relationship with God, can be predicted from the interaction of childhood attachment classification and parental religiousness. Respondents who classified their childhood relationships as avoidant ... were more religious as adults, according to several measures, than were those classifying their childhood relationships as secure or anxious/ambivalent. Respondents in the avoidant category also reported significant higher rates of sudden religious conversions during both adolescence and adulthood irrespective of parental religiosity. These results suggest that God and religion ma function in a compensatory role for people with a history of avoidant attachment; that is, God may serve as a substitute attachment figure."
:arrow: http://lakirk.people.wm.edu/
Still wrong, as shown above. You ought to learn how to support your statements with evidence rather than conjecture. Otherwise, you look like an ignoramus.Quote:
Statistically, atheists are the most likely to have grown up without a father figure, and interestly, are the most likely living a unfullfilling life.They don't like the idea of someone holding them accountable for their actions.
Another justification from the book that does all the thinking for you. Of course, it is better if the slave believes that they cannot understand your orders for then they will follow them without question.
Furthermore, let me quote some more problems from the very same book.
:arrow: Corinthians 2 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
God is not merciful - a brief review of how he treats those that are unfaithful, women, gay, etc. will illustrate this.
:arrow: Corinthians 2 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
Oh nevermind, I found a contradiction in the same book. Apparently God is both merciful and terrible. Or is he a living contradiction that envelopes all things?
:arrow: Corinthians 2 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Jesus was born without sin, then made into sin, thus making the real sinners sinless.
:arrow: Corinthians 2 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
Don't marry someone who doesn't believe what you believe. Also, don't be friends with them either.
:arrow: Corinthians 2 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Oh, fear of God now. So much for mercy.
:arrow: Corinthians 2 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Apparently the bible also says you do not think for yourself... and that you adhere to no thinking for yourself because all your thoughts are of Christ.
Enough of this book. I am sure you may not even reply to them.
In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche,Quote:
Do we need to prove anything to you? He is not invisible to those who believe in him. His very Presence is with us every day. He is as real as our next breath. Just because you can't see him, doesn't mean he isn't real. He just isn't real to you. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You have to reach out for the truth in your spirit, with a sincere heart. On that day you will find him.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Is this another way of saying that the faithful are not intellectual and do not think?Quote:
You are trying to understand from an intellectual point of view.
What would you think of your life if you wasted it all away by doing and thinking what you are told?Quote:
We are Mind, body and Spirit. Some people are not aware of their spiritual side at all. Sad, because that is really the only one that counts. Your Body will decay as will the world knowledge you have gained, die with you. Where will you be then? Only those who have the Holy Spirit within them, will be raised to eternity. It is the Spirit within them that will raise them up. If you don't have it, do you know what happens to you? You need to find out.
You have been given a lucky chance to be able to think and breathe and here you are wasting it away on something that has no reason or justification. It is a myth and exists only because of tradition and a group of other delusional people who think it is real. Of course, a delusion is all the more powerful if more people believe it.
Who is the real one losing out? Where will you be when you die? Nowhere, there is no spirit and there is no soul - these are more vague and ill-defined and imaginary concepts that soften mans fear of death and glorify their purpose in life. It is an egotistical and arrogant thing to think that you are the center of existence.
What you will lose in the end is your life. It will be a waste. Your life will be nothing but that of a sheep or a slave that willingly wears the collar while holding the key the whole time.
~
Who was Jesus' father?
Supporting that Joseph is:
:arrow: Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
:arrow: Acts 13:23
Of this man's seed [David's] hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.
:arrow: Romans 1:3
Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
:arrow: 2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David. ....
:arrow: Hebrews 2:16
For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
:arrow: Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David.
Supporting that he is not:
:arrow: Matthew 1:18
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
:arrow: Matthew 22:45
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
:arrow: Mark 12:35-37
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son?
:arrow: Luke 1:31-35
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring for a son, and shalt call his name Jesus .... Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be seeing I know not a man. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.
~
First off all i might not be able to answer all questions due to time (i don't like the idea that i have to sped 2 hours plus writing replies to so many posts) but i will try to invest some time daily)
Science theories all state that something else caused something else to happen. Yet, when you reach the end of the chain, there's nothing there to change into something else. What comes before what created everything else?It's a paradox. Science cannot explain how something came from nothing. No matter what you do, there WAS SOMETHING before. If there was nothing there, how can something come from NOTHING. I thought that was scientifically proven impossible.
Science, I'm sorry to say, doesn't fill in the blanks for me. Religion does. All the puzzle pieces fit, and it makes perfect sense. At least, to me.
Another question I have, is if evolution is so true, than survival of the fittest would be the rule of thumb, right? Well, than, how do you explain the fits of kindness and benevolence mankind has shown? Even at risk of their own lives. Animals do not do that, risk their lives for someone that is not part of their pack. And yet humans risk their lives for people they do not know all the time. That's not survival of the fittest. So, how do you explain that phenomena? It doesn't fit with the idea of evolution or survival of the fittest.
Also, I find the idea of evolution about as egotistical as the idea of our world being the center of the universe, the sun revolving around the Earth, etc. Somehow, throughout time, science has made us look very important in the grand scheme of things. The Bible says we are not very high up in the grand scheme of things at all.This bothers some people, I have noticed.
Perhaps the human ego is too large?
Science is the search for truth; or is supposed to be, while the Bible is the truth!Religion makes more sense because so many things in science can be contradicted with legit evidence while religion can't be proven wrong in any way.
Nobody ever said that there was nothing and then something.
Definitely. It's easier to just make up answers than look for them. It's also dishonest to say that science doesn't fill in the blanks, when you don't know much about science at all.
Feats of benevolence? Like the holocaust? Inquisition etc.? It's great of you to single out one thing in an effort to disprove evolution, while leaving out contradicting evidence, very scientific. Oh sorry, you don't believe in science.
Animals do lots of things you describe and again just leave out. Wolves have raised human babies. Dolphins save people from drowning etc. Every once in a while you hear a story how some animal did something extreme to save a person.
Leaving all those things out, one can still easily show how "kindness" evolved. It's simply beneficial to a group to support its members (you can look on youtube to see animals save their own from lion or something for example). This is not hard to understand. It's obvious that social animals form a bond and stick together to increase their survival. With humans it could just be more complex in some cases. Why would you think that these things can't emerge from nature?
How is the theory which sufficently defines the course of lifes evolution according to all avalible evidence egotistical? Science can't make us look like anything, it's objective, that's the whole point.
Religions, on the outher hand, are the ones who take the right to make up how the universe works. Isn't that egotistical? I'd say it is.
Yes the human ego is very large. For example, most gods were created in human image, they have human characteristics often times both physically and psychologically.
Science is the search for truth, yes. Exactly for that reason you'll find new evidence that contradicts existing theories, because it doesn't claim absolute knowledge, it looks for it. And it has produced more than satisfactory results by the way. Your computer for example.
I'm sorry that you managed to get brainwashed to a point where the synonym for Bible is truth. The Bible is a 2000 year old book full of contradictions and false information. In what way is that truth?
"Religion" has been proven wrong in many different ways. Hiding from the truth (again) won't make it any less true.
Mixing primordial ooze with lightning can and has spontaneously created life.
That is survival of the fittest, the stupid ones die and the smart ones don't engage in stupid activities. The advent of health care also backtracks evolution.Quote:
Another question I have, is if evolution is so true, than survival of the fittest would be the rule of thumb, right? Well, than, how do you explain the fits of kindness and benevolence mankind has shown? Even at risk of their own lives. Animals do not do that, risk their lives for someone that is not part of their pack. And yet humans risk their lives for people they do not know all the time. That's not survival of the fittest. So, how do you explain that phenomena? It doesn't fit with the idea of evolution or survival of the fittest.
Wrong, the church was the one who claimed the earth was the centre and the sun revolved around earth, science refuted that long ago.Quote:
Also, I find the idea of evolution about as egotistical as the idea of our world being the center of the universe, the sun revolving around the Earth, etc. Somehow, throughout time, science has made us look very important in the grand scheme of things. The Bible says we are not very high up in the grand scheme of things at all.This bothers some people, I have noticed.
The bible is not any more fact than Peter Pan. Name something in science that can be proven wrong so easily? Science deals with observable reality, imperial inquiry, and repeatability; not magic and spells. The way things are proven wrong is by finding a counter example. Oh, I found one, it's a fossil which is a million years old, much older than the bible says the earth is, the bible is wrong.Quote:
Science is the search for truth; or is supposed to be, while the Bible is the truth!Religion makes more sense because so many things in science can be contradicted with legit evidence while religion can't be proven wrong in any way.
where did the primordial ooze and lightening come from lolQuote:
Mixing primordial ooze with lightning can and has spontaneously created life.
Space. Primodrial ooze is nothing but complex chains of hydrocarbons, which were created by extreme heat and pressure from supernovae and inside the cooling earth itself. The water came from comets hitting the earth in it's early existence. The earth's early atmosphere was largely carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, and much thicker than today. Lightning storms would have lasted for millennia.
Firstly : science makes no claims about why this stuff is here, it just makes the observation that 13.7bn years ago the Big Bang happened.
The 'solution' religious people such as yourself propose is that 'God did it'. This is not a solution at all; it makes the problem more complicated. Now you have to explain where God comes from; a conscious being capable of creating an entire universe. The defence is then, 'God doesn't need a cause because he is special in some way'; this is also a complete failure of logic because you might just as well just say 'the universe doesn't need a cause because it is special in some way', as no attempt is given to explain why a causeless event must be God, and the latter is much simpler.
Secondly: no, an animal's genes have a greater chance of surviving if animals look after their relatives. And this is observed in nature all over the place...
Thirdly: even you must think that's a bit ridiculous. We have two options: in the first one, humans are just another organism which have evolved like every other organism by natural selection and passive processes; in the second one, humans are the most important creatures in the entire universe who were created specially by God who gave them the rights to rule the entire planet and all of the other animals on it.
How can you even say that evolution is more egocentric? That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
And it's also completely immaterial because the only reason we have evolution is because of the huge amount of evidence that supports it, not ego.
To be frank i'm not really very knowledgble on all this science and evolution stuff.I just wish that people would realise that we are in fact living in the end times.There was a prediction about saying the pope that we have is the second last pope.As much as me saying the predictions are riduculous on my other thread.Can't really say it never made any sense as i haven't really fully read it that time when i posted the thread.As it turns out it seemed to have some truths.I'd say the max we would possibly have is 15 years at most.As the lord said that no man knows the day or hour when he would return.
I would quote someone who claims to have a vision of Hell in 2006(Bill Wiese).True or not we can never tell but the messages he sends is right.
This is from the Rapture website that i mentioned earlier
The Rapture
This is an event that will not be hidden. The concept of the rapture has already been made known to the masses. It will be treated with ridicule, contempt and mockery by the world's media, but God will see to it that it will be highly publicized before it occurs just so that those left behind might still come to their senses. It will occur in the open, and everybody left behind will know someone who was raptured.
It will happen suddenly, unexpectedly, and lightning fast--"in the twinkling of an eye," as the Bible puts it. And there will be evidence all over the world that this event occurred. Some national leaders will disappear, celebrities in entertainment and professional sports will disappear, entire families will disappear, disbelieving spouses will see their mates vanish, children will disappear. Bank accounts, homes, cars, businesses and relationships will be left behind. The problem for the world's leaders will be trying to convince people that it didn't happen. Because if the world's leaders admit that it did happen then, logically, everything Christians preached about Jesus Christ being the Son of God, the Savior, the Messiah, the Prince of Peace, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings and everything that Jesus preached and taught must be true. And if all of this is true, then the only logical response would be to fall on one's knees before God in confession and repentance and absolute submission to every word of God (as revealed in the Bible). But all of this is diametrically opposed to the way of the world, which preaches freedom from the constraints of God's word, perverse sex, materialism and the devaluation of human life. So, although the rapture will shock everybody and will be covered in the media and everybody left will be aware of someone who is gone, the leaders of the world will begin their great deception, trying to convince the population left behind that there was no rapture.
How is this going to be accomplished? Well, pretty easily because most of the people left behind are already in a state of deception. They have been deceived into believing that Jesus is not the Messiah; they have been deceived into believing that the word of God is not true; they have been deceived into living a lifestyle that only brings constant pain and suffering instead of the freedom and paradise that God offers. The world's leaders will declare that there was no rapture, that a mass hysteria took place, and the news media will follow the party line. Then to make things easier, shortly after the rapture, one-fourth of the world's population will be decimated due to wars, famine and plague. Those who were raptured will be counted among the dead.
After the Rapture
Shortly after the rapture, a seven-year period known in the Bible as the Great Tribulation will take place. It will begin with the signing of a peace agreement between Israel and her enemies and it will end with the physical return of Jesus Christ to set up His kingdom on earth. In between, will be seven years of terror for those on earth.
In 1 Thessalonians, in the New Testament of the Bible, the apostle Paul talks about the 'end times' and a sudden, unexpected calamity that comes upon the world.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 - "... The Day of the Lord will come just as a thief in the night. When they say "Peace and security," then sudden destruction comes on them..."
Then a few lines down, 1 Thessalonians: 5:9 reads: "For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."
According to Paul, when the world is saying "Peace and security", sudden destruction hits... however as then stated by Paul, believers in Christ are not 'appointed' to this wrath, which comes upon the world and starts the Tribulation, which includes the Anti-Christ ruling for 42 months and the entire period believed by many theologians to last up to 7 years.
Jesus said:
John 14:1-3 - "Your heart must not be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you. If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also."
With this well known passage by Jesus, we have proof that God has prepared a new world for his faithful believers. Of course, this leaves us with the question: "When will faithful believers be taken there?"
Left Behind and 666 (the Mark of the Beast)
Revelation 3:3 - Remember therefore what you have received and heard; keep it, and repent. But if you are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you have no idea at what hour I will come against you.
What happens to people who don't escape God's judgement on the world, who are stuck on Earth for the period of Tribulation? Who wake up one morning and discover that people are missing?
Obviously, they have to take part in it. These are the unbelievers and Christians of half-hearted faith who finally repent and turn away from wickedness and profess full love and faith in God during the time of Tribulation.
This group must cope with the rule of the infamous Anti-Christ and refuse to worship him or his image, and refuse 'the mark' that enables people to buy and sell under the Anti-Christ's temporary new world order.
Many of these Christians are reported by the Bible to be executed for refusing the mark of the Anti-Christ – these Christians choose execution, because the alternative is eternal torment in Hell, which is the punishment promised by God if his people take the mark (so if you are left behind, whatever happens, do not take the mark).
On top of that, natural disasters will be occuring all across the world, with greater frequency and terrifying effects. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, heat waves, famine, plagues – in many places these disasters will be so widespread that the Anti-Christ will be the least of peoples' concerns.
In the end of all of this i would hope that this has changed your viewpoint.If it has not then well continue living your lives of but always remember what you read here.
Do not be tricked by the devil.
And as for Christians what are your opinions?
Kingerman, what makes your brand of bullshit better than any other religion's?
Religion is a big pile of crap that requires a person to discard their brains for it to work. Regardless, evolution is a fact, god does not exist, and we don't know how the universe got here. Those are real issues and you people and your fairy tales do nothing but complicate the politics of it all.
Note that kingerman has now explicitly stated, several times, that they do not think on their own and do not know why they believe what they believe. Kingerman is willingly admitting to being ignorant and believing something for no reason at all.
:arrow: Further evidence:
Kingerman also quoted Corinthians to support his argument. If Kingerman is to accept one part of this book as support and something they believe in, they must also accept his part of the book:Quote:
Let's start with homosexuality.I don't know why homosexuality is wrong.
Corinthians 2 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
The above shows how Kingerman also accepts that all his thoughts are nothing but the obedience to Christ.
Again, nothing is better than a slave that willfully wears the collar and believes that they are free. Let us not forget that they can take off the collar at any time.
Another quote supporting that Kingerman suggests that he does not think.Quote:
You are trying to understand from an intellectual point of view.
You will find that, within the history records, that every generation is so selfish as to believe that the world will end in their lifetime.Quote:
There was a prediction about saying the pope that we have is the second last pope.As much as me saying the predictions are riduculous on my other thread.Can't really say it never made any sense as i haven't really fully read it that time when i posted the thread.As it turns out it seemed to have some truths.I'd say the max we would possibly have is 15 years at most.As the lord said that no man knows the day or hour when he would return.
From Fulcher of Chartres, to the Renaissance, to the World Wars. There have always been fools preaching the prediction of the fall of Earth based off of other rambling morons who have no reason to believe in the end of the world.
Perhaps you could actually support what you are saying instead of simply spewing random statements with no evidence or justifications at all.
There is nothing more worthless than a statement with no substance.
What of the ones who envisioned hell in the Islamic faith? What of the Vikings? What of the Buddhists? They say the samething you are - why do you not subscribe to them then? What makes your religion so much more right than theirs?Quote:
I would quote someone who claims to have a vision of Hell in 2006(Bill Wiese).True or not we can never tell but the messages he sends is right.
Again, many others say the samething. In fact, here are other people claiming how the world will end;Quote:
This is from the Rapture website that i mentioned earlier
The Rapture
......
So, if your logic is that, if you can predict the rapture, that it will happen.. then it seems that there are a million ways that the world will end. How are you sure your way is more right than these?
Quotes from the Bible again. Since I have already demonstrated why believing in Armageddon is ridiculous, I will continue the past venture which you have failed to acknowledge. If you are using these lines as justifications, let us also examine what other problems arise from the exact same book you are using;Quote:
In 1 Thessalonians, in the New Testament of the Bible, the apostle Paul talks about the 'end times' and a sudden, unexpected calamity that comes upon the world.
1 Thessalonians 5:2 - "... The Day of the Lord will come just as a thief in the night. When they say "Peace and security," then sudden destruction comes on them..."
Then a few lines down, 1 Thessalonians: 5:9 reads: "For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ."
:arrow: Thessalonians 2 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
:arrow: Thessalonians 2 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
+ You ought to argue, then, that Jews ought to be killed.
:arrow: Thessalonians 2 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
+ Perfect, I was hoping this would happen. It appears that even Paul himself thought armageddon would come in his lifetime but it did not. And you know why? Because it is a lie to scare people in a religion.
:arrow: Thessalonians 2 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
:arrow: Thessalonians 2 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
+ More evidence that Paul was wrong about the time of the Rapture. You still want to continue this path of ignorance?
I can quote more, from the same book, on your request.
Precisely. Apparently, you are so selfish as to believe within the next 15 years... which is also what Paul believed.. and he was wrong.. and he wrote what you are using to justify your beliefs that it will happen. Need I say more?Quote:
John 14:1-3 - "Your heart must not be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you. If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also."
With this well known passage by Jesus, we have proof that God has prepared a new world for his faithful believers. Of course, this leaves us with the question: "When will faithful believers be taken there?"
Just for a few kicks, let us examine John for a few complications;
:arrow: John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
:arrow: John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
+ If it is claimed that Jesus was raised as a spirit after his death, then why would he be speaking of his body that will raise? Or why is Paul speaking of it then?
:arrow: John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
+ Jesus apparently does not understand weather patterns.
:arrow: John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
+ Precisely; Jesus was wrong that there was no Adam and Eve, there was no flood, wrong about weather patterns... so why would you believe a fool?
:arrow: John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
+ A problem of pain and suffering from a just and living God; God punished sinners physically but does not heal them.
More quotations available upon request.
Again you continue with Armageddon talk instead of actual conversation. You are not trying to have a conversation, you are just regurgitating what you have been told.Quote:
Left Behind and 666 (the Mark of the Beast)
Revelation 3:3 - Remember therefore what you have received and heard; keep it, and repent. But if you are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you have no idea at what hour I will come against you.
What happens to people who don't escape God's judgement on the world, who are stuck on Earth for the period of Tribulation? Who wake up one morning and discover that people are missing?
Obviously, they have to take part in it. These are the unbelievers and Christians of half-hearted faith who finally repent and turn away from wickedness and profess full love and faith in God during the time of Tribulation.
This group must cope with the rule of the infamous Anti-Christ and refuse to worship him or his image, and refuse 'the mark' that enables people to buy and sell under the Anti-Christ's temporary new world order.
Many of these Christians are reported by the Bible to be executed for refusing the mark of the Anti-Christ – these Christians choose execution, because the alternative is eternal torment in Hell, which is the punishment promised by God if his people take the mark (so if you are left behind, whatever happens, do not take the mark).
On top of that, natural disasters will be occuring all across the world, with greater frequency and terrifying effects. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, heat waves, famine, plagues – in many places these disasters will be so widespread that the Anti-Christ will be the least of peoples' concerns.
In the end of all of this i would hope that this has changed your viewpoint.If it has not then well continue living your lives of but always remember what you read here.
Do not be tricked by the devil.
But what ought we expect from someone who also admits to not thinking for themself, having thought, or a sense of individuality? Also admittedly following someone who is too stupid to understand weather, history, disease control, and is proven wrong by their own context.
Since you have quoted one of the most notorious books of the bible, I will verse a few key quotations just for you;
:arrow: Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
:arrow: Revelation 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
:arrow: Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
+ Notice that Paul still believes that "the time is at hand" and within his lifetime... yet, 2000 years later, he is still very wrong.
:arrow: Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
+ Simply impossible.. unless your on a flat earth. No fool would actually believe the earth is flat so.. oh wait..
:arrow: Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
+ Uh oh.. Jesus likes to commit adultery. I guess you do to.
:arrow: Revelation 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
+ Again, to drive the nail further in, it is evident that the Rapture was believed to occur very soon but it is very wrong as it has been a long time since this bronze-aged "prediction".
:arrow: Revelation 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
+ If the Sun becomes black, it is not because of the apocalypse.. but because the Sun is exploding. Also, the moon cannot become blood. This is just absurd. This is like saying "Triangles will become square".
:arrow: Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
+ Sorry.. the earth has how many corners..? It's flat..?
Honestly, kingerman, you believe the world is flat? Do we need to demonstrate otherwise to you?
Perhaps you could actually acknowledge responses that take part of your own logic.
~
Yey Daniel Faraday. :V
Ok so where did hydrocarbons, supernovae, heat, cooling, earth, water, comets, atmosphere, carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid come from?Quote:
Space. Primodrial ooze is nothing but complex chains of hydrocarbons, which were created by extreme heat and pressure from supernovae and inside the cooling earth itself. The water came from comets hitting the earth in it's early existence. The earth's early atmosphere was largely carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, and much thicker than today. Lightning storms would have lasted for millennia.
Scientists will not make the leap to presume what they think it all came from unless there is empirical evidence for it. There is no undeniable evidence of any of it, yet, but it is in the works (namely from the LHC). Someone who makes the leap of presuming where it all comes from, makes that leap knowing that it is based off of no justification, logic, or evidence at all - you may as well say it was a pink elephant that made everything. We cannot prove otherwise..
..yet.
I really don't get what that means...?? Who is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
~
Ahhhh so there is something about the creation of the universe that science can't prove...Quote:
Scientists will not make the leap to presume what they think it all came from unless there is empirical evidence for it. There is no undeniable evidence of any of it, yet, but it is in the works (namely from the LHC). Someone who makes the leap of presuming where it all comes from, makes that leap knowing that it is based off of no justification, logic, or evidence at all - you may as well say it was a pink elephant that made everything. We cannot prove otherwise..
I guess an argument against God creating the universe becuase you can't prove it is not up for discussion any more then.
well then prove to me how the universe was created. and i don't just mean the planet and stars... space itself as well. how was it all created?
This is silly; you're demanding proof for something that can't be proven. You even know we think this because we've explicitly stated it. So why are you asking for proof when you know we know it's unprovable?
The point that you miss is that just because a naturalistic explanation of the universe can't be proven, it doesn't mean it's wrong. Likewise it doesn't automatically mean there's a god.
That doesn't mean you can't argue against the existence of a god or a naturalistic explanation, it just means you can't prove something definitively.
I can't disprove unicorns, or the idea that we're all in a Matrix-like version of reality, but that doesn't mean these ideas are therefore true, or that there are no good arguments against them.
But we're back to repeating stuff that has been said countless times before here. And frankly this repetition is annoying.
With that said Photo, then just because you can't prove there is a God doesn't mean it isn't true. Just like you can't prove that there was some other way the universe was created then what was stated in the Bible
If you're going to restate the obvious, this will get very tedious.
No one claimed to be able to disprove God, or Allah, or Zeus, Thor, Isis, whatever. These all might be true, that doesn't mean they are or even that there is a decent chance that it could be true.
As I said, that does not mean that there are not excellent arguments against all these, just because they might be true.
Yes but there's no reason in believing any one over another, is there? Having no idea what caused it isn't really a great argument for God.
I'm yet to see any logical proof or piece of empirical evidence which would suggest that it was God and I've seen some good arguments against it.
Ultimately, the point is to bring glory to God. The fact that i do not reach out and talk to one who claims to be an atheist proves that i am selfish. This life is not about us. It's about truly living your life for Him and fufilling the great commission which is this:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
(Matthew 28:18-20)
The point, my good man, is to save u from going to hell. If you don't get that, then I don't know what you've been trying to do. Even if I don't like you, I have to do it, because Jesus shouldn't have died in vain. And if you don't listen, then you will suffer the consequences, it's your choice. But I think its easier to convince someone like an agnostic, who isn't sure what to believe, or another religion, anyone who doesn't have the know-it-all attitude of an atheist.
Jesus forgives any sin of someone with a truly repentant heart. The purpose of trying to "convert" as you put it is to tell people about the saving grace of God. Christians believe that if you die without accepting Jesus as your Lord you will go to hell. If that is what you believed wouldn't you try to tell other's about it too so they can be saved? Don't be so hard on Christian's, their intention is not to promote thier religion, but for your soul to be saved.
Yeah u can say im crazy for believing in God but if im right and heaven and hell DO exist then ill go to heaven and the people who dont believe will go to hell. now doesn't that sound better then finding out after u die and going to hell? i think it does!
And if it turns out that actually it's Allah that exists and not the Christian God, and Allah sends you to hell for blasphemy but forgives everybody else who was passive?
Yeah, then you're in deep shit aren't you?
Please try to use arguments which actually make sense.
You don't even realize who you actually worship. It is unbelievable what you actually believe in. It's beyond me if you consider yourself moral. You're ready to bend over to an extra-dimensional Hitler and actually make excuses for him. Not only that, you expect me to cry for, feel sorry and worship somebody who got crucified 2000 years ago (which was never proven), while at the same time you believe that billions of people will burn for an eternity. All of which is supposed to be the legacy of a loving god. When you get to heaven, I wish you a good time watching everybody else burn in hell.
I understand and I could also be grateful that somebody would try to save me from eternal torment if the whole thing wasn't so decadent. If I believed that millions upon millions were going one by one into hell for an eternity, I'd have a mental breakdown. I find your coldness in this situation worrying.
No, belief isn't a choice. I have a brain which dictates my "soul". I am incapable, call it a defect if you want, of believing things like the christian myths. God made it, his decision to burn me. Don't blame it on me, I never asked to be born.
Good luck with converting agnostics, because I'm one of them. Most atheists are agnostics, they acknowledge their ignorance of the universe. For that single reason you'll have a hard time convincing them with unfounded promises of truth. The only ones who have a know-it-all attitude are those who think they know the whole truth, how can you be such a hypocrite? You are the one who claims to know things, not me!
I think crazyness is relative. Religion is obviously a part of nature and an important part of human evolution and not really a mental illnes. I'm just sorry that Buddhism or some other philosophy didn't take the leading role in the world, much suffering would have been averted, not to mention the potential gains in a more rational world.
Besides, your Pascal's wager logic is faulty as Xei pointed out.
Then your god is an egotistical prick. Me 1, one of the many gods humanity has come up with, 0.Quote:
Ultimately, the point is to bring glory to God.
And what if you're wrong and you've wasted lots of your only life praying to this fictional god, not enjoying aspects of life out of needless guilt or because things are forbidden. What about the significant financial and emotional costs? What about all the money that is spent on religion? Imagine how much good that could do if used for say, cancer or fusion power research.Quote:
Yeah u can say im crazy for believing in God but if im right and heaven and hell DO exist then ill go to heaven and the people who dont believe will go to hell. now doesn't that sound better then finding out after u die and going to hell? i think it does!
And what if you were wrong about your choice of gods? And there are more Gods to be wrong about than you can imagine.
Not forgetting what people like you always fail to notice is that you cannot choose your beliefs. You can only feign belief.
Pascals wager is only taken seriously by morons.
What you really mean here is that it's easier to convince stupid people, which is why there's a large negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity. i.e. the more intelligent and knowledgeable, the less likely you are to believe in any form of god, let alone the self-contradictory and arbitrarily chosen judeo-christian one.Quote:
I think its easier to convince someone like an agnostic
YET. Pay attention.
You are right - it should not be up for discussion, on either side - because there is no evidence for it either way. However, it is up for research.Quote:
I guess an argument against God creating the universe becuase you can't prove it is not up for discussion any more then.
Please do not be another hypocrite that asks for the evidence but then does not actually pay attention to it.
You are right - there is still a probability that God created everything. There is also a probability that balloons did.
However, it also depends on the God you speak of. If you speak of the biblical one, then there are a profound amount of reasons otherwise why you ought not to believe in it. There are countless errors and flaws with the biblical God which time will expose.
Another vague concept that I highly doubt you can, not only define, but support or justify. I am sure that you reason this statement based on tautological grounds (ie. "You're right O'nus, it cannot be defined, it cannot be justified.. and that's what it is! It is the immutable and ethereal" etc. etc.). This is all nice spiritual sounding but also delusional nonsense that does not prove a thing past the same grounds of imaginary concepts or hallucinations.
Again you justify your beliefs on a bible that proves itself wrong. We have already been over this and yet you still to continue to not think for yourself. Willingly.
:arrow: Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.:Quote:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
(Matthew 28:18-20)
+ What's this..? Apparently Mary was not a virgin..?
:arrow: Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
+ This is made-up. There is no historical evidence for this.
There are far too many problems with every book you are quoting. I would go on and prove this, but you are ignoring my points.
Not a surprise coming from someone who admits that they do not think.
Quote:
The point, my good man, is to save u from going to hell. If you don't get that, then I don't know what you've been trying to do. Even if I don't like you, I have to do it, because Jesus shouldn't have died in vain. And if you don't listen, then you will suffer the consequences, it's your choice. But I think its easier to convince someone like an agnostic, who isn't sure what to believe, or another religion, anyone who doesn't have the know-it-all attitude of an atheist.
Will you consider this objection to your fragile and contradictory argument?
You could replace Jesus with Muhammed, Ti, Mithras, Yahweh, etc. So tell us why we ought to buy into yours as opposed to the others.Quote:
Jesus forgives any sin of someone with a truly repentant heart. The purpose of trying to "convert" as you put it is to tell people about the saving grace of God. Christians believe that if you die without accepting Jesus as your Lord you will go to hell. If that is what you believed wouldn't you try to tell other's about it too so they can be saved? Don't be so hard on Christian's, their intention is not to promote thier religion, but for your soul to be saved.
What about the Heavens Gate? Your only chance was to join them in the rise to Ti to be accepted into Heaven. Or you'll go to hell.Quote:
Yeah u can say im crazy for believing in God but if im right and heaven and hell DO exist then ill go to heaven and the people who dont believe will go to hell. now doesn't that sound better then finding out after u die and going to hell? i think it does!
What about the Muslims? Your only chance was to join them in the rise to Muhammed to be accepted into Heaven. Or you'll go to hell.
What about the Mormons? Your only chance was to join them in the rise to Eloheim to be accepted into Heaven. Or you'll go to hell.
What about the Scientology? Your only chance was to join them in the rise to Engram depletion be accepted into Heaven. Or you'll go to hell.
What's the difference between you and the rest?
Or will your lacking ability to think ignore the question again. I feel like I am being rude saying that.. but you are the one that admitted it.
~
That's what God ultimately wants, huh?
Diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/di...issisticpd.htm
There is only one God and if you wish to KNOW the truth submit yourself to God and accept the atonement God provides for your sin and be made new and joined to God through the righteousness and atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ..you will receive the Holy Spirit and be guided in Gods truth that is greater than flesh and blood.
There is only one way and that is through Jesus Christ.
Deuteronomy 29:4
But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.
Isaiah 43:8
Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.
You are not answering the question.
We are asking you how you know.
Please acknowledge what we are all asking you.
There was no atonement. It is flawed. The above video demonstrates why.Quote:
...and accept the atonement God provides for your sin..
You are not explaining why your way is more right than the others.Quote:
...and be made new and joined to God through the righteousness and atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ..you will receive the Holy Spirit and be guided in Gods truth that is greater than flesh and blood.
There is only one way and that is through Jesus Christ.
Distinguish yourself. Explain how your God is more right than the others.
Think for yourself.
I love that you just quoted the old testament to justify your beliefs. Are you seriously ignorant to the rest of this book?Quote:
Deuteronomy 29:4
But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.
Are you aware that this book that you just quoted also supports raping women, murdering children, maiming non-believers, lands of giants, that God is a jealous God, that you ought to kill those that believe other things, and genocide?
If you are to quote this one passage, are you prepared to accept the rest of it?
If so, then you ought to be killing us - not discussing with us.
Again, this passage is directed more to you; the one who has admitted to not thinking for himself, justifying their statements with contradictions, and following someone who's own writings proves itself wrong.Quote:
Isaiah 43:8
Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.
Your own book you quoted here, Isaiah, states that you ought to kill us with a sword. Also, let us not forget that Isaiah also states that you ought to deprive women so that they are more desperate for sex.
Why are you not doing these things as well?
Do you want my direct quotations? I am sure you want to desperately interpret them another way, but you have not done so with the previous ones.
In addition, it is proof that the bible, in all it's complete volume, was not written till over a hundred years after Jesus. It was also edited by over 1000 people, twice. It is still edited. It is wrong on nearly every attempted scientific fact (eg. flat earth, weather, adam and eve, etc.).
And yet you want to speak of truth.
Look in a mirror.
~
When i say blind and deaf it means spiritually blind and deaf
I think the post you quoted is the key, for him at least. No matter how many proofs you show, there is always faith. By telling us we are spiritually blind and by not responding to any of our questions which directly "disprove" his beliefs, he's basically saying that we will never understand the truth if we try to disprove or rationalize it, we just have to accept it as it is. And that's the key to most such beliefs. Blind faith, Delusion. It gets to a point where everything in the Bible becomes undisputable reality. As you can see, anything we dispute falls on deaf ears, that's what I call denial. All he can do then is bring up vague concepts, as if saying random words like "spiritual" and "holy" mean anything concrete.
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.
I used to be a Christian. I also used to be an athiest. I am no longer bothered by Christians trying to convert me.
I appreciate some of the teachings it gave me such as faith and love. Too many spiritual things have happened to me to deny the existence of a the spirit world.
Jesus is simply the Solar Savior of the Age of Pisces. Jesus is the Sun. The Sun gives us life. Two fish... be fishers of men.
When we move into the Age of Aquarius, there is going to be another Solar Savior surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac.
Great post, a reply like this should easily end the thread but of course, people will always argue that their beliefs are right.
I sometimes wonder whether all this astrological mystical spiritual BS is just a giant hoax that everyone on the planet is in on except me. It's so ridiculous for people to think this way.
I am glad to see that you are fair enough to state that it is a matter of faith.
However, you are using the bible to prove to yourself that the bible is true. How are you so confident to believe in something in such a way?
Why do you not believe the other Gods that exist in the same manner..?
You quote the bible a lot.. have you considered the quotes I have given you? There are far too many problems with the bible, as I have shown, and way too many editing and manipulation of it.Quote:
That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).
The bible is not the word of God, but the word of greedy men. If you are interested in reading why this is the case, I will elaborate it for you.. I am simply doubtful that you will consider it.
Have you considered that there is nothing else to believe if you do not have the tools to consider otherwise?Quote:
Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
What are the alternative beliefs?
If you are born into a world and see a ball of fire in the sky.. what else are you going to think it is? Of course you think it is a God, what else would our ancestors have thought it was? Can you blame them? I am a confident Atheist and I have no blame on them whatsoever. Even Richard Dawkins would say that he would have come to the conclusion of a God as well - what else could you have come to?
The better question is; to what extent of knowledge does man require to understand that God is not involved in our lives?
Notice the trends of God being removed from our academics from the heliocentric system to evolution.
And yet you support a religion that condones raping, child-murdering, genocide, sexism, bigotry, and murder. I say this because you are quoting the bible which does support these things - which I have already quoted for you.
This is St. Anselm's argument and you will notice a great flaw in it;Quote:
In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
You can also imagine a great island that is so great that it cannot be imagined. However, this does not necessitate its existence; the island will still not exist.
You can replace "God" in this statement with anything - it does not necessitate it's existence.
Now you are speaking of evolution.Quote:
A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
You point out the odds of our existence.. they are so miraculous! Think of all the variables that had to take place in order for us to exist! Now there two solutions that you could consider;
- A God planned it
- Evolution
Which is more difficult to imagine? That an intelligent agent simply planned it all or that it all miraculously occurred on its own.
If it is so difficult for you to imagine how it is that the universe created without an intelligent being.. then you are fringing on why I feel so lucky to be alive.
This is, I think, the third time I have posted this video in this thread alone:Quote:
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.
What you have said is under studies.
Furthermore, you can replace "God" with anything. How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created everything. Or cotton.
You cannot disprove me on that statement.. does that mean I am right? Of course not.
Evolutionary psychology clearly demonstrate that mans altruistic characteristics are passed on because of how much it ensures your existence and survival. You are better off being nice to others so that they are nicer to you so that you can survive.Quote:
A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Humans survive better in civilizations.
This is why we have language - so we can communicate with each other, learn from each other, support each other, and act as communities.
The evolution of man is grand and the technological advances are amazing.
And yet you just what to say that God had it all planned out.
Maybe it would be better if we all just sat around and prayed 24/7? There are many religions that do this very thing.. do you think you ought to?
Same is said about Yahweh, Muhammed, Ti, Xenu, Charles Manson...Quote:
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
This is ridiculous.Quote:
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
You are saying the only reason you are a good person is because a jealous God is telling you to?
Why are you ignoring the many things that religions have been profoundly wrong about? All I must do is mention Galileo and you ought to feel a twinge of guilt about the remarks you just made.
This paragraph really irritates me because it is this mentality that prevents the evolution of mankind.
You, sir, are the dissent of man.
The worst part is that you are blatantly ignoring everything.
Same is said about Yahweh, Muhammed, Ti, Xenu, Charles Manson...Quote:
How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace.
Then you actually do not believe in miracles.Quote:
Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God.
Consider this;
X event happens. It's event seems miraculous. Either;
+ God planned it - thus nullifying it's miraculousness because it was planned anyway
+ Probabilistically it is a miracle as it lies outside the norm. Thus, it becomes a very lucky and miraculous event that took place as the odds were outstanding (eg. our existence).
Same is said about Yahweh, Muhammed, Ti, Xenu, Charles Manson...Quote:
God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious.
You consider yourself enlightened and saved and amongst others who are saved and enlightened...Quote:
In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.
..but how are you confident that you are right? You say that your emotions tell you this.. but how do you know that they are right?
We are mistaken by our emotions all the time..
Again, in the words of Friederich Nietzsche;
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
It already is the age of Aquarius...Quote:
Originally Posted by WakingNomad
..and academia would consider that pseudo-science.
..unless you try to ascribe the age of Aquarius to pseudo-science.
..then I say you are reaching for straws.
Do you think that if a lawyer said, in court, "This man is astrologically likely to murder" that it would better his case..?Quote:
Originally Posted by pounce
~
That is only an argument for what a legitimate concept of the reality of God would involve. It proves nothing about any actual reality of God. The ultimate penis would be infinitely long. Does that mean there is somebody with an infinitely long penis?
With billions of stars in each of billions of galaxies, there will be planets with such situations. There will also be situations in which life can exist in other forms.
Why would the "un-caused" automatically be God? People have addressed that to you already, and you ignored them. If you are going to post arguments, you should respond to the counters.
The capacity for conscience evolved because it helps societies survive better than otherwise. Zebras, bonobos, and chimpanzees demonstrate morals also.
Is the need to aggressively disprove the validity of socialism an argument for the validity of socialism? Was the need to aggressively disprove that the world is flat an argument for the idea that the world is flat?
Talk to me this time. I don't think arrogantly ignoring people who are talking to you is a Christian virtue. It's pretty rude.
There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.
How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.
This being the case, why think theology—the study of God—should be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:
1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.
2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus lived in North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.
3. Existential relevancy—the belief system must conform to reality as we know it, and it must make a meaningful difference in the life of the adherent. Deism, for example, claims that God just threw the spinning world into the universe and does not interact with those who live on it. How does such a belief impact someone in a day-to-day manner? In short, it does not.
The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:
1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?
But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to employ. Narrowing the list of possible questions down produces the following:
1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about me?
First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not), and we end up either an agnostic, unsure if we can really know anything, or a pluralist, accepting every position because we are not sure which, if any, is right.
Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is. Some say there is no such thing as absolute truth, but taking such a position becomes self-defeating. For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it? Postmodernism affirms no truth, yet it affirms at least one absolute truth: postmodernism is true. In the end, absolute truth becomes undeniable.
Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false. Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.
The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.
This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion. Some say this is not possible, but—why not? The truth is, logic is vital when examining spiritual claims because it helps us understand why some claims should be excluded and others embraced. Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid).
For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is. One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.
Logic also dispels the whole “all roads lead to the top of the mountain” analogy that pluralists use. Logic shows that each belief system has its own set of signs that point to radically different locations in the end. Logic shows that the proper illustration of a search for spiritual truth is more like a maze—one path makes it through to truth, while all others arrive at dead ends. All faiths may have some surface similarities, but they differ in major ways in their core doctrines.
The conclusion is that you can use reason and logic in matters of religion. That being the case, pluralism (the belief that all truth claims are equally true and valid) is ruled out because it is illogical and contradictory to believe that diametrically opposing truth claims can both be right.
Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.” While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer. To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here? The argument for God can be presented very simply:
Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
You cannot deny you exist because you have to exist in order to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true. No one believes you can get something from nothing (i.e., that ”nothing” produced the universe), so the second premise is true. Therefore, the third premise must be true—an eternal Being responsible for everything must exist.
This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.
Now, this conclusion says nothing about what kind of God exists, but amazingly enough, it does do one sweeping thing—it rules out all pantheistic religions. All pantheistic worldviews say that the universe is God and is eternal. And this assertion is false. So, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and all other pantheistic religions are ruled out as valid belief systems.
Further, we learn some interesting things about this God who created the universe. He is:
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)
This Being exhibits characteristics very similar to the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which interestingly enough, are the only core faiths left standing after atheism and pantheism have been eliminated. Note also that one of the big questions in life (origins) is now answered: we know where we came from.
This leads to the next question: can we know God? At this point, the need for religion is replaced by something more important—the need for revelation. If mankind is to know this God well, it is up to God to reveal Himself to His creation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all claim to have a book that is God’s revelation to man, but the question is which (if any) is actually true? Pushing aside minor differences, the two core areas of dispute are 1) the New Testament of the Bible 2) the person of Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism both claim the New Testament of the Bible is untrue in what it claims, and both deny that Jesus is God incarnate, while Christianity affirms both to be true.
There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity. From the voluminous number of ancient manuscripts, to the very early dating of the documents written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses (some only 15 years after Christ’s death), to the multiplicity of the accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever contradicted a single claim the New Testament makes—to the fact that the apostles went to their deaths claiming they had seen Jesus in action and that He had come back from the dead, Christianity sets the bar in terms of providing the proof to back up its claims. The New Testament’s historical authenticity—that it conveys a truthful account of the actual events as they occurred—is the only right conclusion to reach once all the evidence has been examined.
When it comes to Jesus, one finds a very curious thing about Him—He claimed to be God in the flesh. Jesus own words (e.g., “Before Abraham was born I AM”), His actions (e.g., forgiving sins, accepting worship), His sinless and miraculous life (which He used to prove His truth claims over opposing claims), and His resurrection all support His claims to be God. The New Testament writers affirm this fact over and over again in their writings.
Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true. And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims. As we have already learned, two competing truth claims cannot both be right. So anything in the Islamic Koran or writings of Judaism that contradict the Bible cannot be true. In fact, both Islam and Judaism fail since they both say that Jesus is not God incarnate, while the evidence says otherwise. And because we can indeed know God (because He has revealed Himself in His written Word and in Christ), all forms of agnosticism are refuted. Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live.
This same Bible proclaims that God cares deeply for mankind and wishes all to know Him intimately. In fact, He cares so much that He became a man to show His creation exactly what He is like. There are many men who have sought to be God, but only one God who sought to be man so He could save those He deeply loves from an eternity separated from Him. This fact demonstrates the existential relevancy of Christianity and also answers that last two big questions of life—meaning and destiny. Each person has been designed by God for a purpose, and each has a destiny that awaits him—one of eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. This deduction (and the point of God’s becoming a man in Christ) also refutes Deism, which says God is not interested in the affairs of mankind.
In the end, we see that ultimate truth about God can be found and the worldview maze successfully navigated by testing various truth claims and systematically pushing aside falsehoods so that only the truth remains. Using the tests of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential relevancy, coupled with asking the right questions, yields truthful and reasonable conclusions about religion and God. Everyone should agree that the only reason to believe something is that it is true—nothing more. Sadly, true belief is a matter of the will, and no matter how much logical evidence is presented, some will still choose to deny the God who is there and miss the one true path to harmony with Him.
kingerman thank you for that absurdly long post, I'm going to read it when I get a chance. *prints kingerman's post and throws it in the trash can*
Firstly, thank you very much for replying. I look forward to reading your reply now. Unfortunately, they are getting long, so please understand that if I am not quoting it, it is because I have no objections to it - not because I am deliberately ignoring it.
As for this quote, I think I agree. I just don't understand it's relevance yet. I just want to make sure that you know that I, personally, agree.
What is the methodology you employ..? You say you are using reasoning to reach this conclusion, but you are not explaining it.Quote:
How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions.
I won't debate Buddhism with you - I will leave that for someone who is more educated in it than I (for I personally am not very educated in Buddhism yet).Quote:
1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.
However, I have already point out many inconsistencies in Christian faith. Namely the bibles foundation itself - it has been edited far too many times and yet is referred to as the word of God. Why is the immutable word of God edited by man and wrote 100 years after Jesus' birth? (New testament written, old testament re-vamped and with books omitted).
You are right about Mormonism - there is no evidence for their claims at all.Quote:
2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus lived in North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.
To bring it to your beliefs, what of the references of the earth being flat in the bible? What about Adam and Eve? What about the flood? What about the lands of giants and moving mountains? What about stars coming down to earth? There are more, but I am most concerned with Adam and Eve. Considering you just used archaeology to argue Mormons.. what about the archaeology that demonstrates the impossibility of Adam and Eve?
Would not then science be the best answer to this variable? Not religion? Religion uses faith in reasoning whereas science uses skepticism and doubt in order to determine the best, unbiased, solution for problems and questions. Religion does not do this but presume the conclusion from the beginning before even researching anything.Quote:
3. Existential relevancy—the belief system must conform to reality as we know it, and it must make a meaningful difference in the life of the adherent. Deism, for example, claims that God just threw the spinning world into the universe and does not interact with those who live on it. How does such a belief impact someone in a day-to-day manner? In short, it does not.
Have you ever read Descartes? Do we need to elaborate the Cartesian doubt for you..?Quote:
First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not)...
Again, would not science then be the best medium in this respect? Science works with only systematically and reproducible observations.Quote:
Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is......
Is this not also applicable to faith..?Quote:
Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false. Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.
Uhm.. you cannot just say "it exists" and that means it does. You have to justify you propositions.. and you have not.Quote:
The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.
Logically, you ought to only know those things which are valid and true.Quote:
This leads us to the next question of whether reason/logic can be used in matters of religion...Logic is absolutely critical in dismantling pluralism (which says that all truth claims, even those that oppose each other, are equal and valid).
A) God is God
B) God exists because of God
Thus,
C1) God exists.
This is illogic but is the crux of faith. I am really hoping you start to say how logic proves God...
I don't understand why you are saying this then.. ought you not then see that all these faiths are wrong?Quote:
For example, Islam and Judaism claim that Jesus is not God, whereas Christianity claims He is. One of the core laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which says something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. Applying this law to the claims Judaism, Islam, and Christianity means that one is right and the other two are wrong. Jesus cannot be both God and not God. Used properly, logic is a potent weapon against pluralism because it clearly demonstrates that contrary truth claims cannot both be true. This understanding topples the whole “true for you but not for me” mindset.
You have asked a very fundamental question in philosophy, and I am happy for that.Quote:
Next comes the big question: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not accept anything beyond this physical world and universe) say “no.” While volumes have been written and debates have raged throughout history on this question, it is actually not difficult to answer. To give it proper attention, you must first ask this question: Why do we have something rather than nothing at all? In other words, how did you and everything around you get here?
However, do not make the mistake of thinking that Atheists think it is impossible for God to exist.
I think it is possible for God to exist. I have simply not seen the evidence for it that surpasses an imaginary concept or fairy tale.
Have you considered the video I have posted three times for you now..?Quote:
The argument for God can be presented very simply:
Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
That does not mean it is your God... please watch my video... I do not want to post it again..Quote:
...so the second premise is true. Therefore, the third premise must be true—an eternal Being responsible for everything must exist.
Oh for crying out loud.Quote:
This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.
Fourth time.
I will consider the rest of what you say when you consider what others have to say.
~
Kingerman really reminds me of Bigmo, the Muslim who quoted verses from the Koran and almost completely ignored the points people used to debate him. He would get stumped and apparently think he made up for it by posting twenty Koran verses and babbling for ten paragraphs about one point somebody made. PJ was convinced Bigmo was an Islamic spambot. I think Kingerman might be a Christian spambot. We might as well be debating somebody we are watching on television, and the points are generic creationist propaganda. There is a good chance there is not even a person posting that stuff.
The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 B.C. to 400 B.C. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately A.D. 40 to A.D. 90. So, anywhere between 3400 to 1900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Also during this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?
When God originally inspired men to write His Word, it was God-breathed and inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16-17; John 17:17). The Bible nowhere applies this to copies of the original manuscripts. As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. As a result, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. Of all of the thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that are in existence, no two were identical until the printing press was invented in the A.D. 1500s.
However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.
Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).
Do you see what I mean?
Many a skeptic claims that the Bible depicts a flat earth. Scriptural references such as Revelation 7:1 are cited, which speaks of “four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.” However, this passage makes reference to the cardinal directions as seen on a compass – i.e. north, south, east and west. Terminology to a similar effect is used today when we speak of the sun rising and setting each day, even though we know that it is in fact the earth which orbits round the sun.
Another passage often referred to is Psalm 75:3, which speaks of God holding the pillars firm. However, the psalms are written in the poetry genre. Rather than referring to literal pillars, this rather is representative of God guaranteeing the earth’s stability. Even when the moral order of the world seems to have crumbled, God will not fully withdraw His sustaining power.
In contrast to the supposed “flat earth” verses, there are numerous Scriptures that clearly indicate otherwise. The earth is described in Job 26:7 as being suspended over empty space, implying a spherical figure. This notion is further entertained in Isaiah 40:21-22, which refers to “the circle of the earth.” This is further supported by Proverbs 8:27 (NKJV) which speaks of God drawing a circle on the face of the deep. From a ‘bird’s-eye-view’ of the ocean, the horizon is seen as a circle. Such an observation indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins, describing the reality of day and night on a spherical earth.
The round earth is further supported by Jesus in Luke 17:31,34: “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back...I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left.” This would seem to indicate the phenomena of day on one side of the globe while darkness abides on the other.
In conclusion, the curvature of the earth is certainly a biblical concept, and there is little or no basis for the charge that the Bible teaches a flat earth. The Scriptures that seem to present a flat earth can all easily be explained when correctly interpreted and understood.
Kingerman do you work for http://www.gotquestions.org/? I must say all the walls of text are from there.
Do you even use your own mind for anything? Even if you did, it wouldn't help. The got questions people aren't geniuses either.
Should I start copy pasting scientific papers or are we having an honest debate?
I seem to remember watching an interesting video on Youtube about that at some point.
It also covered a few aspects of Christian mythology that were taken from Egyptian mythology regarding Horus/Isis.
I would have thought such a powerful being would therefore be able to avoid getting basic facts wrong as well as being self-contradictory. And such a wise being would have been sure to make sure the book had no ambiguities.Quote:
The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it
It was been edited over time. This point is meaningless if it has been edited all along by man. Consider the councils of Nicaea.
Wrong. Councils of Nicaea.Quote:
There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts.
The flat earth is not really a big concern of mine and I am not going to argue it.
However, Adam and Eve is a huge part of the bible and it is definitely not right. Adam and Eve did not exist and there is empirical evidence that they did not. You used archaeology yourself to debate, so I do not see why you cannot use it again here.
~
In terms of a response to my religious points and questions, no.
I remember PJ told me that spambots can be accompanied by actual people who throw in a few comments that are more personal so the spambots will seem more genuine. Since somebody was there for a moment, I ask you... why have you been ignoring me and others?
Haven't read the rest of the posts so I'm sure it's been said. I can't get married because of the religious right. Christianity also made me suicidal as a teenager for being gay, it also stops scientific progress through stem cell research and other lines of research because of "playing god".
Well actually you didn't Google my posts, because if you did you'd get anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of results. The number of results doesn't matter here. What matters is that I got only one result which is questions.org, all of which was mostly identical to your sudden appearance of long posts. Not that I aspire to be believed by somebody like you, yes I actually use my mind on the forums, there would be no point to just copy paste anything, since I come here to voice my opinion and not somebody else's.
Normally I wouldn't care, nor am I an authority on what you can or can't do on this forum. Copy paste all you want, I don't really care. It just seems unfair since there is a dialogue here. Reading an argument from somebodies post and then pasting a wall of text from questions.org, while ignoring well thought out responses for the last 5 pages, to which you only answered with a sentence that didn't clarify anything. Carry on.
I do not think it is such a bad thing to reference things. You have already admitted that you do not think for yourself. But, you could at least link to those that you are referencing. Otherwise you are doing something that is actually very illegal;
Plagiarism.
Thank you for a fair question. This is the most reasonable thing you have said so far, I think. (I mean this seriously).
The only thing that would make me think that it is the word of God is if God himself actually dropped it from the sky or if the book could not be linked to any human traits. In other words, if it was written magically on its own.
The fact of the matter is, every single holy doctrine has been written and edited by man.
How can you trust the way to live your life ascribed to a book that has been blatantly wrong about too many things and edited more than any other book in history?
No matter what the case is, the books are named after people who transcribed the bible.. not God. Even if God influence others to write it, he did not write it himself. The best you can hope for is an elaborate explanation that God wrote it through people. However, in this respect, then God is limited in his power and cannot even write a book on his own.
Furthermore, this is like a perfect being writing with a broken pencil. Humans are incredibly erroneous, I think we can easily agree. God cannot even influence humans to live perfect lives in his name.. how can you expect him to get humans to keep a consistent book throughout 2000 years while being edited by 1000's of people? Have you heard of the telephone game?
You're obviously a smart person. Please consider your autonomy.
~
Councils of Nicea.Was that from Dan brown?
Okay i researched and found out that,The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. didn't decide what books would go into the Bible - they only gathered together the books that were already recognized as Scripture by believers. It's a misconception to think that Nicea decided what books would go in and what would stay out.
Adam and Eve
Jesus also verified that Adam and Eve were the first two people on earth in Matthew 19
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Jesus was referring to Genesis 2
And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gensis 3:20 also states that Adam called His wife Eve which means she is the mother of all the living....they were the first two people on earth and had no ancestors.
Adam and Eve did not ever exist. This has been proven. It is completely and empirically untrue and impossible.
What was the point of including that with no thought or, well, thought? Just to quote and say it does mention them?
No. History books.
What did you do, skim over wikipedia?Quote:
Okay i researched and found out that,The Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. didn't decide what books would go into the Bible - they only gathered together the books that were already recognized as Scripture by believers. It's a misconception to think that Nicea decided what books would go in and what would stay out.
The Council of Nicaea's purpose was the ensure that Jesus' appearance was Godlike and to remove all forms of mortality within him. Furthermore, it's primary purpose was also to bring together pagans and Christians in order to bring peace between the two large warring factions.
Here are more reliable sources:
Hillary of Poitier
Eusebius
Eustathius of Antioch
Athanasius
Gelasius of Cyzicus
These are all primary sources that record the Councils of Nicaea directly. I suggest you thoroughly read through them if you are to truly dedicate your life to the book that they wrote.
You are using the bible to justify this now whereas earlier you used archaeology to disprove Mormonism.Quote:
Adam and Eve
Jesus also verified that Adam and Eve were the first two people on earth in Matthew 19
Why are you now immune to this? There was no Adam and Eve - it is impossible and also undeniable. To think otherwise is like saying that gravity doesn't exist or that the earth is flat. In other words, delusional.
You are a smart person - do not ignore this significantly wrong fact.
You still try to justify that Adam and Eve exist by utilizing the bible as your source?Quote:
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Jesus was referring to Genesis 2
And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gensis 3:20 also states that Adam called His wife Eve which means she is the mother of all the living....they were the first two people on earth and had no ancestors.
Have you considered that the writers of the bible do not have the evidence to prove otherwise to themselves? They did not have the fossil history that we now have - they could not argue otherwise. Thus, it is no surprise that the people back then were duped by their lies.
However, we now know for certain that it is an impossibility for Adam and Eve to have existed.
You're intelligent. Why do you deny this?
~
From gotquestions
Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.
Thank you for referencing.. I honestly have no problem with it at all and think it is a good thing.
I do not understand what this is in response to.Quote:
Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.
So.. this admits that there was mixed authorship and editing.. and it does not defeat the fact that it is wrong about Adam and Eve - which is an integral part of the entire foundation of Christianity (original sin and atonement).
Can you elaborate..?
I find this an odd objection.Quote:
Do you have biological evidence Julius Caesar existed?
Let me first tackle the question;
- We know that Julius Caesar existed because of the prolific historical documents
- We know that he was cremated and spread amongst St. Angelos Castle in Rome but the Visigoths ruined it when they invaded.
- The Julii family line can be traced. In other words, his relatives can be traced as well.
Aside from that, I do not see how it holds relevance to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are said to be the first two people on the planet. It is impossible for that to be true.
How is that even remotely analogous to Julius Caesar? This is not a proper analogy.
~
The Bible is perfect, hundreds of prophecies that come true, and sure you can look up "Bible contradictions" and get plenty of stuff, but those are from people only looking for contradictions, every one can be disproved by either reading the rest of the passage or just taking the time to study it. Before i came to Christ I looked up hundreds of contradictions. Eventually i could no longer deny the truth
What the hell are you talking about? I just showed you already that Paul's prophecies were to happen in his life-time.. and they did not.
It is not a contradiction - he is simply wrong.
The only prophecies that came true were the ones that already happen. Do you honestly think someone is a prophet if they can recount history to you? In that case, google is God.
Why are you completely ignoring the point about Adam and Eve?Quote:
and sure you can look up "Bible contradictions" and get plenty of stuff, but those are from people only looking for contradictions, every one can be disproved by either reading the rest of the passage or just taking the time to study it. Before i came to Christ I looked up hundreds of contradictions. Eventually i could no longer deny the truth
You're smart. I know you are. Why are you dodging this fundamental problem?
~
Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically.[93] They point out Paul later states the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2) which is a word Jesus uses himself (Matthew 24:43-44) expressing the impossibility of predicting His second coming (Matthew 24:36).[94]
Paul prophesied in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11: "For you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul prophesied that the Man of sin would sit in the temple of God declaring himself as God. The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE.
Adam and Eve
The Jews in the Scripture traced their lineage right straight back to Adam and Eve.They were the parents of Cain,Abel,and Seth.If you don`t believe in them,you could`t believe in Enoch,Abraham,Noah,King David and the others,as Adam and Eve were the first to bear children.We too could trace our heritage back to them given the resources,as the gentile people are descendants of Japeth,which was one of Noahs three sons,who in turn was descended from Adam and Eve.New Testament writings traces this lineage.
Have you ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecy?
i live in northeast pa, in my 33 years of existence,ive only had two personal encounters with hardcore christians pushing their beliefs on me,as far as christianity is concerned,i think of it as walmart,their the biggest chain,not going away anytime soon,if the shoppers are happy,i wont convince them to go elsewhere...and hope i dont get a shitstorm of criticism from atheists
God demands, seeks and requests our worship because He deserves it, because it is the nature of a Christian to worship Him, and because our eternal destiny depends upon it. That is the theme of redemptive history: to worship the true, living and glorious God.
The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.
God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.
However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).
Thank you for acknowledging me. I am much more interested in your responses to the arguments concerning God's existence, but at least you responded to a theological argument I made.
Why does God deserve praise to the point that anybody who doesn't give it to him deserves torture? Does God have Narcissistic Personality Disorder? There are people like that, and we call them arrogant assholes.
Thanks for acknowledging more of my arguments.
Those points don't counter the arguments I made or answer the questions I asked.
Isaiah 43:7 says that God created us for His glory. In context with the other verses, it can be said that man “glorifies” God because through man God’s glory can be seen in things such as love, music, heroism and so forth—things belonging to God that we are carrying “in jars of clay” (2 Corinthians 4:7). We are the vessels which “contain” His glory. All the things we are able to do and be find their source in Him. God interacts with nature in the same way. Nature exhibits His glory. His glory is revealed to man’s mind through the material world in many ways, and often in different ways to different people. One person may be thrilled by the sight of the mountains, and another person may love the beauty of the sea. But that which is behind them both (God’s glory) speaks to both people and connects them to God. In this way, God is able to reveal Himself to all men, no matter their race, heritage or location. As Psalm 19:1-4 says, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands; day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their utterances to the end of the world.”
What are the questions?
While the Bible nowhere explicitly states that masturbation is a sin, there is no question as to whether the actions that lead to masturbation are sinful. Masturbation is nearly always the result of lustful thoughts, sexual stimulation, and/or pornographic images. It is these problems that need to be dealt with. If the sins of lust, immoral thoughts, and pornography are forsaken and overcome, masturbation will become a non-issue. Many people struggle with guilty feelings concerning masturbation, when in reality, the things that led to the act are far more worthy of repentance.
The Bible sees the denial of God as the true delusion, and this delusion extends to the atheist’s view of humanity as “good,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. A sober assessment of human beings recognizes that we lie, cheat, steal, lust, complain, become embittered and resentful, envy, hate, forget, and are careless, ruthless, disrespectful, and loveless. Not only do we do all these things on a daily and hourly basis, but we do them naturally from our birth. This is what God’s Word means when it says, “There is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:3). This does not mean we never do anything positive, like obeying our parents or giving money to a church or charity. It means that we are so obviously sinful that it is silly to call human beings “good.” Nobody teaches children to lie; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches teenage boys to lust; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches the employee to resent his boss or spread malicious gossip about the coworker with whom he is competing for a promotion; he does these things naturally. Nobody teaches the wife to unjustly criticize and complain about her husband, or the husband to neglect and condescend to his wife; both do these things naturally.
How does that answer my questions or counter my points?
Thinking about sex sex sex sex is perfectly normal. No one should feel guilty for it. You think about sex all the time. Women's naked bodies are amazingly beautiful. You are thinking about having sex with the same sex our the opposite sex right now. How do I know? I keep talking about sex. It's okay. I know, because you are human. We are biologically wired that way. That's why there are so many billions of us on the planet. We like to have sex a lot.
Ponder this paradox:
Thinking about having sex with someone is a lustful thought, or a sin, unless you are married to them. But, you would never get married to them unless you were sexually attracted to them. It's impossible to be sexually attracted to someone, fall in love with them, without thinking about wanting to have sex with them.
It's a tragedy that people in church who are gay will want to kill themselves because they feel guilty for being gay. It's a tragedy that people in church will want to kill themselves because they think about having sex with the same sex.
***
Oh, and by the way, on the subject of sex, it says in the Bible that if a man rapes a woman who is betrothed, his punishment is to give her father 50 pieces of silver and he must marry her, and may not divorce her all of his days. (Yeah... and I never in all my 25 years of church, never heard that scripture preached on. I came across because I was so devout I read the Bible five times.)
Lovely. What a brutal punishment. Now, this sick fuck gets to rape her over and over again for the rest of her life, but it's not considered rape by society because they are married.
And, she is forced to marry her rapist, because she did what? Oh, she was born a woman, and women are property to be bought and sold like cattle. If you don't know the scripture reference, then you don't know your Bible well enough. It shouldn't be too hard to find.
The verse is Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Now that is some sick shit!
Religion is inherently dangerous, it always has and always will spark mass conflict, also, its a load of bollacks that is preventing our advancement as a spieces.
If you would kindly read the quotations I gave you earlier, he explicitly states that it is within his lifetime. Furthermore, even if it was hypothetical, why are you basing your beliefs on a hypothetical scenario.
Aside from the fact that I have already quoted Paul as saying it would occur in his lifetime, how come you are now saying that it is to happen suddenly when before you were saying that you were seeing signs of it coming and it is "obvious that the rapture is soon upon us".Quote:
Paul prophesied in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11: "For you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, Peace and safety, destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul prophesied that the Man of sin would sit in the temple of God declaring himself as God. The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...16_238_F1.jpegQuote:
Adam and Eve
The Jews in the Scripture traced their lineage right straight back to Adam and Eve.They were the parents of Cain,Abel,and Seth.If you don`t believe in them,you could`t believe in Enoch,Abraham,Noah,King David and the others,as Adam and Eve were the first to bear children.We too could trace our heritage back to them given the resources,as the gentile people are descendants of Japeth,which was one of Noahs three sons,who in turn was descended from Adam and Eve.New Testament writings traces this lineage.
Genetics proves you wrong - there was no adam and eve, they never existed, and we are all related to to Polyp.
~
OK I'm going to start with this the catholic christian religion had very very dark ages during 5 centuries they tried to control human beings by telling them what to believe. That they should "ignore" there intuition to decide for yourself, when people tell you that it's to change your believes and use you, there's nothing else to it.
AND PLEASE "ATHIESTS" don't confuse God with what a religion says about him/her usually they're all just saying a part of it to control others, most people that spread a religion are doing that. God exists either ways of what any religion says. God is the union of all conciouness of everything there is, a Creator is another thing which I think the bible tries to talk about.
It's just that thing that I don't like about what athiests think, ohhh look what their religion says, so God musn't be real, you can say that what they say God is, is a big fat lie.
On another note, you don't really have to worry about what kingerman thinks , you don't have to proove him wrong , when he dies he'll see for himself what's gonna happen :banana:
Precisely - a country of self-policing civilians is the best populus. Who's a better slave than one that willingly slave themselves?
I realize that "God" is still a concept that can still be proven - much like Unicorns of Fairies. However, I am arguing the reliability of the bible and it's teachings so far in this thread.Quote:
AND PLEASE "ATHIESTS" don't confuse God with what a religion says about him/her usually they're all just saying a part of it to control others, most people that spread a religion are doing that. God exists either ways of what any religion says. God is the union of all conciouness of everything there is, a Creator is another thing which I think the bible tries to talk about.
"Is man a creation of God? Or is God a creation of man?" Pretty much sums up my response to this quotation. Unfortunately, the traits to show that man has created God is overwhelming. A simple view at the parallel's between all God's and it's importance as an attachment relationship can demonstrate this.Quote:
It's just that thing that I don't like about what athiests think, ohhh look what their religion says, so God musn't be real, you can say that what they say God is, is a big fat lie.
Maybe you should consider that I am worried about lives that go to waste much like they believe I will die in hellfire forever. Some Atheists do not care to debate - but I do.Quote:
On another note, you don't really have to worry about what kingerman thinks , you don't have to proove him wrong , when he dies he'll see for himself what's gonna happen :banana:
~
I understand, I'm not saying I don't care =), if people ask me I can give help. The thing is each person chooses what to believe is true, and where their life is going , no one is doing something "WRONG" , I think this way ( it's hypocrite sometimes but I'm trying xp) they know what they're doing, to tell someone is wrong is to not trust in them, he is creating his own life, that's how I choose, but I'm not saying anyone should copy me or stuff xP , the idea is calming down and deciding what we really want. So sorry xp
I just want you to consider my original post and what this thread is about;
:arrow: People vote based on religious beliefs
:arrow: Beliefs affect your communication and rapport with others
:arrow: Beliefs affect businesses (eg. hospital care, hostels, etc.)
:arrow: People will avoid certain care due to beliefs (eg. womens rights, blood transfusions, etc.)
:arrow: Children are very susceptible to being indoctrinated
This list could go on for a long time. The bottom line is, beliefs are a fundamental reason for how we and others behave.
~
I think that first religion afects people's beliefs and then over time they get more and more influence and economic power, when that happens they can mold everything that people do, what we eat , see, listen, touch , do, dance, pray etc etc. Even religion can be all a lie created with the intention of controling people, maybe elite groups are behind this... dunnoo.
Eh, keeping your beliefs to yourself shouldn't really be a virtue, IMO.
If you are concerned with truth as an agnostic/atheist, you should talk to people about it. That isn't being forceful or intolerant. On teh flip-side if you are are religous and are concerned about salvation, it would be immoral NOT to share your beliefs with people- whether or not they are right.
And it's kind of too easy to just write it off as a mind-parasite. Sure, you can argue that it can be used politically. AND debate the logic of fundamentalism. But that really isn't the root of the problem, is it?
Precisely.
This is exactly why Emperor Constantine brought major religions together; to avoid conflict and have an easier civilization to manage. Just look into the origins of the holidays and the days of the week and you see the evident merging of Paganism and Christianity.
Religion is the sovereign power.
~
It should be if you're a fundamentalist.
This is precisely why these people should keep their mouths shut. That way, there aren't more of them for future generations to deal with.
No, the root of the problem is that it's a collection of ideas that insert themselves into the persons mind and replace their sense of self-worth. In this way, they manage to spread. It's a fine tuned system, there is no doubt about that. Look at the evolution debate for instance. You have this system of ideas preventing people from seeing obvious truths because those obvious truths threaten the need for their system of ideas. But that system of ideas has replaced their sense of self-worth so they are not so easily abandoned. That's a big problem.
This is the result of extremists. Every religion I have looked at has a basis of non-violence... some form of "Thou shalt not kill" or "Do no harm" some people just twist their beliefs to justify violence. If everyone truely followed these non-violent beliefs there woule be no war.
meh.......
While what you say is technically true, you really shouldn't be encouraging them into thinking that their point of view is at all close to valid. They certainly shouldn't have to right to talk about it in the presence of children. That's like a junkie getting her kids hooked on heroin because it makes her feel better. It's downright child abuse.
Wow... very long thread. I should have kept up with it when it was first made, but I didn;'t start reading it until about an hour ago lol. I gave up on the last 3 pages.
There were a lot of very interesting points made by everyone though!
Allow me, please, a very brief "sermon":
The name of my God is Jehovah. He created the world, untold thousands or millions or billions of years ago. I don't know. The Bible doesn't specify. All I do know is that the Bible says: 'A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are as if a day to God'.
It also says that God is still "resting" in his "seventh day". I can't even imagine what God's timeline is and it's not important to me.
What I do know, is that the creation account (before "science") gave an order of creation which turned out to be in harmony with the scientic theory of evolution (as far as I understand it to be).
God said that everything would reproduce according to "their kind". But when you get right down to the scientific ground-zero DNA level of exactly what a "kind" consists of- who knows, maybe reptiles became birds and the DNA deteriorated or branched off after time.
I won't even pretend to know anything about DNA.
What I do know is that Jehovah was the God of the Israelites. They were his nation and they had agreed to do everything God wished.
Anyone who reads history knows how well that went *dripping sarcasm*. When the Jews didn't accept Christ, God disowned the Jews as his chosen people and the way was open for Gentiles.
But when Jesus was on earth, certain Jews tried to kidnap him in order to appoint him King, but he hid from them. His "kingdom" had not yet come and those who became Christians would strive to follow the example of Christ in all that he did:
>Do not pick up weapons against man
>Love your neighbor and God
>Abstain from the works of the flesh, from politics, from things sacrificed to idols and from blood.
>Teach people about the God who promises a better future of ever-lasting life on EARTH.
Okay... so not very short. Sorry about that lol... but what I wrote is much shorter than what I would like to write :lol:
Should gay's be allowed to marry? According to the constitution, yes. God no longer has a nation, and there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.
Should creationism/evolution/safe sex be taught in school? I think all should be taught so each side can be studied by everyone.
Should parents teach their children their religion? Absolutely. It's a command from God. But children won't live with their folks forver, and when they grow up and move out they can choose what they want to do with both their secular and religious educations.
I don't understand why people feel compelled to "rescue" the children of other people.
My parents thinks it's abusive of me to not have a television in my house or that I can't give my kids absolutely everything they want. They think it's abusive that I don't celebrate holidays even though I do give them gifts at other times of the year.
They think my religion is abusive because I will deny them a blood transfusion but insist on other quality medical care (but at their age, they can decide for themselves, and half of them would probably accept).
I don't understand why other people should care one way or the other.
Yes, when I am active in my congregation I go to strangers house to share the Bible with them. But I keep it very short:
"Hello, my name is April, and I'm briefly visiting with my neighbors in the community to offer some encouragement from the Bible.... Are you much of a Bible reader.... Would you like a free Bible study... have a nice day."
90% of the people I actually find at home are polite but not interested.
I don't force my way into their home and shove my Bible down their throats...
I essentially agree... When a child is old enough to understand the theories they should be presented with all of the available theories and evidence so they can make up their minds as an individual. They shouldn't have a specific theory shoved down their throats... although I think that happens much too often that the parents will present their children with only one view instead of giving them a choice... :(
But P. Stoned, religion doesn't have to be a tool. It can be used by someone who legitamently is searching for truth. One can believe that their own religion is rational without closing their minds to outside ideas.
Are you advocating creationism be taught in science classrooms here? Or are you saying it should be mentioned as part of other subjects?Quote:
I think all should be taught so each side can be studied by everyone.
What versions of creationism do you teach as well? What about the Ancient Greek version for example?
Unfortunately, science class is for science and there is no science in religion. No matter how much creationists would like there to be so. Schools teach about religion, but they don't teach how one should go about being a follower of any religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaylin
"Woes to you, oh Earth and Sea, for the devil sends the beast with wrath because he knows that time is short." Revelation 12:12
"Let him who hath understanding recon the number of the Beast, for it is a human number. His number is six hundred and sixty-six." Revelation 13:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAgIh...om=PL&index=47
Because when a person, confronted with two alternatives, can say that one of those choices makes more sense to him/her and he/she goes with that decision, he/she is being rational. Religion can be the more sensible choice to someone. If it is, than they aren't just grasping for straws. Even if you think they are wrong- if it makes sense to them they aren't necesarily being coralled by a wily preacher like sheep.
As far as the second half, I phrased that poorly. I meant that religion doesn't necesarily have to be a tool, not that it should ideally be used as one. And, at it's core, religion should be a search for truth. In it's purest form, that is all any religion is.
Hmm. Why?Quote:
I lol'd
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
There, Dr. Hawkings can explain it a lot better than any of us can. Be careful though, he uses logic and math instead of magic, don't let it throw you.
All of them should be thought in school, but not in the same class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhaylin
Science is science, it belongs in the science class.
The Bible is literature, it should be taught in a literature class.
The Bible is also Christian mythology, it should be taught in a history class (but not as history)
Safe sex should be taught in sex-ed.
Abstinence only sex ed should never be taught.
No, only to latin speaking Israelites and Indiana Jones was actually correct; it was Iehovah until about 1650. God has different names depending on the language spoken. The earliest jews called him YHWH. Ehyeh asher ehyeh was the name given to Moses in the Tora. Jesus spoke aramaic, so he would have called god "Allah," I always find that very amusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyaylin
i dont think we should even teach sex ed at all
then the kids wont even know HOW to have sex
That's the problem with abstinence only sex ed, they don't know how to have sex, so they do it wrong and get pregnant and full of STDs.
i mean, if you dont teach sex ed at all then the kids will not even have sex on their minds, and the little 6th and 7th graders wont even know the anatmy of it
No, no, they definitely will still have sex on their mind and be having sex. We are biologically programmed to think about sex and to have sex. Males hit their sexual peak between 17 and 20.
Not to mention that most kids knows something about sex before sex ed, and that the kids are certain to get urges when they're getting older. And what the hell is wrong with them having sex anyways, as long as it's safe sex? I never got that mentality.
I think the only solution is to teach both abstinence and safe sex. Teach kids that they are playing with fire if they have sex because dealing with a pregnancy is way more than what they are ready for, but then teach them that IF they do it any way, this is the safEST way to do it. I don't agree with teaching abstinence only or safe sex only.
:shock: THAT is the trippiest piece of information I have come across in a while. I wonder what Rush Limbaugh would say to that one.
It's not completely safe. Condoms can break, and Herpes can be spread even if the condom stays intact. It's just a whole lot safer than otherwise.