Religion

[Nomad]

I know this is the "Politics" forum, but I think religion deserves a healthy debate here at NewDoom. Besides, I asked Phoebus if it was OK, and he said it was, "As long as we don't get any complaints."

So if you have problems, shut the fuck up. ;)

Well, my views have changed slightly after having this debate over at Rusty's Abyss forums, but I myself claim to be Agnostic, with atheist tendencies.

I'm starting to believe more and more that religion should be abolished. The governments of the world can do nothing about stopping people's beliefs, but it should begin to look down on religion.

Why?

Because the majority of wars, the majority of people being killed in the world, the majority of the hate in the world, are all derivative of religion and superioristic ideologies.

There is hardly such a thing as a non-holy war. I think the current conflict over in Isreal is a good example, but the "holy" attributes are easy to see. The two gulf wars were started by radical muslim attacks on America. World War II was started by the nazis wanting to cleanse the earth of greedy Jews, and other "non pure" peoples, and Japan's disdain for the Chinese.

There is so much hate in the world, which I believe the majority of which is due to different beliefs, which are all false anyway. An outside, and completely unbiased observer would be disgusted with how we act toward each other, simply because of different beliefs that can not be proven.

Because there is no god. There is no JHVH. There is no Allah. There is no Brahma, nor any of the Hindu sub-dieties. Siddhartha Guatama never really achieved enlightenment, thus is not the Buddha, because all of those teachings are bullshit. "Spirits" do not live in objects. And every other diety is imaginary, designed to give us "hope" that our "souls" will find rest in the "afterlife."

There are so many different religions. And so many incoherent derivations of each religion. Yet every person who believes each differen sect and division of their religions, believe that they are right, and everyone else are wrong. How can you believe in an ideology that can't even get itself right?

By simply taking into account that god is imaginary, all of the mysteries, all of the unexplained inconsistencies in religion, all of the "what if"s dissappear, and the world suddenly makes sense.

For example, the ultimate question, "Why does bad things happen to good people?" Why does god allow his believers to suffer? The biggest argument is that of giving people "free will," but that brings up one of the biggest paradoxes possible.

Many people might find themselves in a position where they either lose their keys, or lock them in a car. They might pray to God to help them out in some way, and "magically", their spouse might come by to visit on lunch, and let them into the house. Then they will claim, Oh, My Prayers Have Been Answered! Thank You, God!

But doesn't that negate free will? Doesn't God influencing the husband to stop by the house during lunch indicate that he was manipulated to do so, thus losing his free will?

Now take the school shooting at Red Lake high school in Minnesota for example. English teacher Neva Rogers was busy teaching her class, when gunshots and screams erupted from elswhere in the building. She acted quickly, locking the door, and turning the lights off. She then proceeded to tell everyone to pray, as she did so herself.

Moments later, the gunman walks by, noticing that the door was locked. He shoots out the glass, and opens the door, and walks up to Mrs. Rogers, puts a 12ga shotgun to her head and pulls the trigger.

What happens next might have been a "sign" that God was going to spare her life, for as he pulled the trigger, there was nothing but a click. Seems like a miracle, right?

Only, the gunman proceeds to pull out another gun, and shoots the woman three times in the head, and then once more in the face for good measure. She was dead instantly.

He then aims the gun at the students in the corner, and asks them "Do you believe in god?"

All but one answered yes, and the gunman proceeded to kill all of them but that one.

How can God allow his devout believers to be murdered so cold-bloodedly, yet spare the person that openly denied belief? There are a million things that God could have done.

But the fact is, there is no God. I refuse to believe in a being that will insist on loving every one of his creations, but completely ignore the pain and suffering many go through. God will ignore the pleas of a woman being raped, fervantly praying for help. He ignores the millions of praying believers in Africa, starving to death.

But he'll help some selfish bitch get her keys.

Miracles are an illusion. It's high time that people start realizing the delusions they suffer from, and start living in the Real world. We are all in the same boat, and we need to learn to work together. Religion is a hinderance on finding peace in the world, despite the supposed fruits of the "afterlife" that each religion promises. We have only one life to live, and after that there's nothing. Zip.

We're ruining the future when our children and children's children could be living in a paradise, instead they will have to endure the same mindless bickering that we do today. Stop giving into your selfish beliefs that being a good person will get you a golden ticket to Heaven, when you could be helping to build this world into a paradise for everyone.

[DooMAD]

The two gulf wars were started by radical muslim attacks on America.
I'll try not to get off topic too soon, but I have to say that although they may have been the events that provoked a military response from the US and others, they certainly weren't the root cause of the conflicts.

As for the rest of the post, I'm inclined to agree to an extent. I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that religion should be abolished, as that would be a massive contradiction to my belief in human rights. If people base a large part of their life around a religion and it forms a part of who they are, it shouldn't be acceptable to deprive them from it. In fact, I've been known to defend religion on occasion, such as the situation where France has banned all pupils from wearing anything religiously symbolic in school. It's overly authoritarian and an affront to the freedom of expression we should all have the right to practice.

The problem arises when people begin to use their beliefs as an excuse to do something that is clearly wrong. It's something that happens all too often and applies to some of the cases you've cited, like the Israeli/Palestinian/Lebanese conflict, along with many others. It somehow became socially acceptable to find meaning in a religious text that isn't really there and abuse it to further your own agenda. If it weren't for such abuse, religion wouldn't be so harmful. I've often compared religion to other superstitious beliefs like witchcraft, where people sought explanations for things in the world they didn't understand. One group attributed unexplainable phenomena to witchcraft, the other to an all powerful deity. Both notions seem naive by today's standards, but somehow religion stuck. The fact that people are prepared to believe things so blindly and without question is frankly quite scary. In extreme cases, people are using their religion as a crutch, incapable of judging the true difference between right or wrong and just doing whatever their holy texts, or the person (mis)interpreting it, tell them to.

Finally, assuming religion were ever abolished, it wouldn't exactly solve the world's problems overnight. There are plenty of other ways for people to cause suffering, fear and hatred. From the small stuff like groups of youths causing petty vandalism and nuisance crime, to corrupt organisations, both financial and political, exploiting the vulnerable, to authoritarian regimes who have found a dividing line other than religion to warrant the oppression of innocents. It would help some situations, but people will always find another excuse to pursue their own agenda at the expense of others.

[rustyslacker]

Fuckin' Political subforum is eating TAb. :(

Well, I think that religions are full of double-standards. To use one glaring example:

"Wendt", a hardcore religious guy, claims that a mass-murder/rapist/robber can be saved by accepting God as his/her savior, but an athiest will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS go to hell. WTG?!

[jetflock]

I agree. We won't truly evlolve until religion (but not SOME of its values), is destroyed.

[Aliotroph?]

I doubt we'll truly evolve anyway unless we eliminate most material scarcity and transcend our crappy fragile bodies.

Bleh. Depressing. I'm gonna go hang out with an imaginary Winona-bot now. ;)

[Doom_Dude]

Sorry if this railroads the religion talk but I doubt we'll truly evolve until we kill off the use of money. It's a flawed idea that should work but its too corrupted and needs to die or it needs to be drastically changed. There's gotta be a better system.

Religion, politics and money all should be put into a grinder. :p

[Aliotroph?]

I could name a few politicians who belong in a grinder. Anyone wanna map that with me? ;)

[Looney]

So we should abolish sex/porn because it causes rape... We need to abolish governments as well for obvious reasons... :p While we are at it, we need to abolish video games too they cause people to commit murder... *bug* Oh... and lets not forget women, it was a woman that was the cause of the Trojan war. What about all the poor and starving children that Christian groups help all over the world... we need to abolish them as well??? Yeah Nomad they are all War mongers and need to be abolished.

WTF man...

I have a huge problem with this thread... more so your attitude. Your thoughs are speaking arrogance, ignorance and intolerance. These are the things that start Wars. I don't give a rats ass if you believe in God or the Devil... not my problem. But what does bother me is your lack of tollorance to others and their right to believe in what they feel is right or best for them.

Look, it is arrogance, ignorance and intolerance that need abolished, (.) end of story.

[Nomad]

My wish to educate and abolish religion is no different from a Christian's desire to "save other's souls." There is nothing arrogant or ignorant about it.

My only intolerance is because of the intolerance caused by the ignorance of others.

Insult my ideas or beliefs, Looney, but don't insult me. It seems you are exactly the person I am directing this proposal to.

[Looney]

You have nothing to say that would change my mind on my beliefs. All you are doing in my mind is preaching intollorance and that is not even worth the effort in responding any further on. What I believe is my personal business and not up for debate. You want all religion abolised, so that would include your own belief. That may be to much for you to understand but it is true. What you believe is a form a relgion... Practice what you preach and abolish your own beliefs (Religion) first. You have a right to your opion but you have no right to force your beliefs on others... Better yet come to my house and I will show you how I handle unwelcomed preaching. I would slam the door in your face as I do others doing the same. That includes so called Christian groups.

[rustyslacker]

How is he preaching intolerance? He's preaching the abolishment of religion, which he states is the source of intolerance.

Look, it is arrogance, ignorance and intolerance that need abolished, (.) end of story.
And a lot of that would disappear with the abolishment of religion, no?

[Looney]

Ok let me see if I can make myself more clear... To state that ALL religion needs abolished is arrogent in the fact that it is intollorant of others beliefs, therefore, to lump ALL religion in the same catagory is being ignorant.

[Nomad]

All religions are in the same category--Religion.

I have no problem with expressing individual beliefs or ideologies. There are many unknowns in the world that cannot be explained by current knowlege, and possibly never will.

However, it is organized religion and people's uses and misuses of it for their own personal agendas that I have a problem with. I am not preaching intolerance. I am "preaching" an end to the intolerance.

There is no way that the government or anyone else can stop people from having their own beliefs, and that is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that religion no longer should be taken "seriously", if that makes any sense to you. Religion should no longer have any effect on the decisions of authorities. Religion should NOT have any power in the world.

That also means that no one should have any extra rights because of their religion.

What I am proposing is nothing more than what the blacks marched for in the 1960s. Equal rights for all--which includes no special rights for any one person because of their beliefs.

I find it amusing that you are condemning me and my beliefs while my intentions are good. My beliefs are not of a "religion," they are merely observations that I have made and conclusions that I have made based on those observations. Nothing more than simple scientific thought; cause and effect. Telling me to "abolish" my "religion" is saying that you do not accept the scientific method, and do not believe in anything scientific that you have been taught--when the evidence of which is plain as the eye can see.

There's no deities. There's no hand waving. There's just the universe and everything in it, and everything makes sense.

That is not a religion. That is reality.

[rustyslacker]

There's no deities. There's no hand waving. There's just the universe and everything in it, and everything makes sense.

That is not a religion. That is reality.
BURRRN!!!1
What I am proposing is nothing more than what the blacks marched for in the 1960s. Equal rights for all--which includes no special rights for any one person because of their beliefs.
This is slightly off-topic, but I'm seeing racism shift away from "equal rights for all" to "special privilages for the minorities". This morning, while taking a student survey, I learned that I may be eligible for a college scholarship based on my ethnicity.

The paradigm has shifted. BOOOO! AFAIK civil rights was about equality.

[eX_Do0mY]

I know this is the "Politics" forum, but I think religion deserves a healthy debate here at NewDoom. Besides, I asked Phoebus if it was OK, and he said it was, "As long as we don't get any complaints."

So if you have problems, shut the fuck up. ;)

Well, my views have changed slightly after having this debate over at Rusty's Abyss forums, but I myself claim to be Agnostic, with atheist tendencies.

You have the right to your own opinion :)

I'm starting to believe more and more that religion should be abolished. The governments of the world can do nothing about stopping people's beliefs, but it should begin to look down on religion.

If the government looked down on religion, here comes another war.

Because the majority of wars, the majority of people being killed in the world, the majority of the hate in the world, are all derivative of religion and superioristic ideologies.

Ok, I'm going to look at this at my Christian point of view. People don't realize that there is "good and evil" in the world, and not all of it is caused by God. People always look at God and ask Him why he does this to him, but they obviously forgot about Satan.

There is hardly such a thing as a non-holy war. I think the current conflict over in Isreal is a good example, but the "holy" attributes are easy to see. The two gulf wars were started by radical muslim attacks on America. World War II was started by the nazis wanting to cleanse the earth of greedy Jews, and other "non pure" peoples, and Japan's disdain for the Chinese.

Ok, I agree to a point. All of those people waged war due to intolerance. If you don't follow God, you follow a mirage image of Satan. Satan can mimic all true things that God does, except true baptism and saving of the soul.

There is so much hate in the world, which I believe the majority of which is due to different beliefs, which are all false anyway. An outside, and completely unbiased observer would be disgusted with how we act toward each other, simply because of different beliefs that can not be proven.

You can't see the wind, but you know it's there right? Similar situation here. If you'll read the Old Testament of The Holy Bible, you'll see God was quite active and very apparent in that time. And yet there was still people who incoherently evil, or didn't want to follow Him. Why is that? Some people are apparently influenced by another outside force besides God. Once again, we bring Satan back into the picture.

Because there is no god. There is no JHVH. There is no Allah. There is no Brahma, nor any of the Hindu sub-dieties. Siddhartha Guatama never really achieved enlightenment, thus is not the Buddha, because all of those teachings are bullshit. "Spirits" do not live in objects. And every other diety is imaginary, designed to give us "hope" that our "souls" will find rest in the "afterlife."

Don't argue without giving reason. Explain WHY you know for sure God doesn't exist. And explain where we go after we die. If we just didn't exist anymore after life, then wouldn't that make life meaningless? May as well just slit your wrists now.

There are so many different religions. And so many incoherent derivations of each religion. Yet every person who believes each differen sect and division of their religions, believe that they are right, and everyone else are wrong. How can you believe in an ideology that can't even get itself right?

Denominations are man's way of perverting the Gospel to fit it's wants. Like the Mormons, they believe that they can have multiple wives. Come on, that isn't even legal in the U.S. Why should God let man get away with something like that.

By simply taking into account that god is imaginary, all of the mysteries, all of the unexplained inconsistencies in religion, all of the "what if"s dissappear, and the world suddenly makes sense.

Explain the world without God. You still have the "What if God exists?"

For example, the ultimate question, "Why does bad things happen to good people?" Why does god allow his believers to suffer? The biggest argument is that of giving people "free will," but that brings up one of the biggest paradoxes possible.

God doesn't allow his believers to suffer. If you truely follow His Word and believe in Him with all your heart, we will never let you suffer in this world.

Many people might find themselves in a position where they either lose their keys, or lock them in a car. They might pray to God to help them out in some way, and "magically", their spouse might come by to visit on lunch, and let them into the house. Then they will claim, Oh, My Prayers Have Been Answered! Thank You, God!

But doesn't that negate free will? Doesn't God influencing the husband to stop by the house during lunch indicate that he was manipulated to do so, thus losing his free will?

God doesn't influence EVERYTHING. That situation may have been a consequence. If God influenced everything, then we wouldn't have free will, or be having this discussion would we?

Now take the school shooting at Red Lake high school in Minnesota for example. English teacher Neva Rogers was busy teaching her class, when gunshots and screams erupted from elswhere in the building. She acted quickly, locking the door, and turning the lights off. She then proceeded to tell everyone to pray, as she did so herself.

Moments later, the gunman walks by, noticing that the door was locked. He shoots out the glass, and opens the door, and walks up to Mrs. Rogers, puts a 12ga shotgun to her head and pulls the trigger.

What happens next might have been a "sign" that God was going to spare her life, for as he pulled the trigger, there was nothing but a click. Seems like a miracle, right?

Only, the gunman proceeds to pull out another gun, and shoots the woman three times in the head, and then once more in the face for good measure. She was dead instantly.

He then aims the gun at the students in the corner, and asks them "Do you believe in god?"

All but one answered yes, and the gunman proceeded to kill all of them but that one.

How can God allow his devout believers to be murdered so cold-bloodedly, yet spare the person that openly denied belief? There are a million things that God could have done.

Things happen for a reason. Some of those children may have had serious problems later in life, and God didn't want them to suffer. As for the child the gunman let live, God may have given them a chance to change their beliefs.

But the fact is, there is no God. I refuse to believe in a being that will insist on loving every one of his creations, but completely ignore the pain and suffering many go through. God will ignore the pleas of a woman being raped, fervantly praying for help. He ignores the millions of praying believers in Africa, starving to death.

Once again, those millions of praying "believers" in Africa may not be following the correct word.

But he'll help some selfish bitch get her keys.

Read above in the discussion about that.

Miracles are an illusion. It's high time that people start realizing the delusions they suffer from, and start living in the Real world. We are all in the same boat, and we need to learn to work together. Religion is a hinderance on finding peace in the world, despite the supposed fruits of the "afterlife" that each religion promises. We have only one life to live, and after that there's nothing. Zip.

Yeah, I agree on making this world a better place, but I'd like to see the pleasure in Heaven, and not what's going on in Hell. And once again, explain why there is nothing after death.

We're ruining the future when our children and children's children could be living in a paradise, instead they will have to endure the same mindless bickering that we do today. Stop giving into your selfish beliefs that being a good person will get you a golden ticket to Heaven, when you could be helping to build this world into a paradise for everyone.

Once again, making the world a better place is great. But you can't turn something that is incoherently evil into something good.

[rustyslacker]

You can't see the wind, but you know it's there right? Similar situation here. If you'll read the Old Testament of The Holy Bible, you'll see God was quite active and very apparent in that time. And yet there was still people who incoherently evil, or didn't want to follow Him. Why is that? Some people are apparently influenced by another outside force besides God. Once again, we bring Satan back into the picture.
This as a pure "Wendt" example. Give reasons for your arguments.
Once again, those millions of praying "believers" in Africa may not be following the correct word.
This is just saying that one demoniation of Christianity is "right", and all the others are "wrong", correct? But each one says all the others are wrong? So, how do you know?
Yeah, I agree on making this world a better place, but I'd like to see the pleasure in Heaven, and not what's going on in Hell. And once again, explain why there is nothing after death.
The living will never know if there is a true afterlife. There, that one's settled.
God doesn't allow his believers to suffer. If you truely follow His Word and believe in Him with all your heart, we will never let you suffer in this world.
Yeah, sure. Show me evidence of that one.
Don't argue without giving reason. Explain WHY you know for sure God doesn't exist. And explain where we go after we die.
Explain why you know He DOES exist! Why don't YOU explain the afterlife? Basically all the evidence that religious followers have is their holy text, and that's hardly a credible source. I'll tell you why if anybody asks.

[Nomad]

Hooray. Fresh meat! Haha. ;)

Ok, I'm going to look at this at my Christian point of view. People don't realize that there is "good and evil" in the world, and not all of it is caused by God. People always look at God and ask Him why he does this to him, but they obviously forgot about Satan.

...I agree to a point. All of those people waged war due to intolerance. If you don't follow God, you follow a mirage image of Satan. Satan can mimic all true things that God does, except true baptism and saving of the soul.

I will begin with saying that God is not pure good. It is illogical to say he is.

First of all. God is omnipotent. Which means, God has control over all realms--the realm we live in, on earth, heaven, AND hell. God has complete control over everything that happens in hell. God is responsible for every torture that occurs in hell. If God truly is all-loving, how could he bear to torture those who he loves?

Secondly. Lucifer, nor any of the other fallen angels, would not exist if it were not for God. God created all of the angels at once, but was not pleased--for they did not have a will of their own. However, how could Lucifer rebel against God if he had no free will?

The "proper" answer that a priest would give, would likely be that God told Lucifer to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all of the mayhem and evil that Lucifer stirs up.

However, once you take into account that God is imaginary, all of the evil in the world is no longer blamed on an imaginary diety of darkness, but rather is purely out of human action. Again, no hand waving, and no mysticism. Nothing to explain--the origin of "evil" is completely obvious.

You can't see the wind, but you know it's there right? Similar situation here. If you'll read the Old Testament of The Holy Bible, you'll see God was quite active and very apparent in that time. And yet there was still people who incoherently evil, or didn't want to follow Him. Why is that? Some people are apparently influenced by another outside force besides God. Once again, we bring Satan back into the picture.

No, I can't see the wind, and yes I know it's there. Because air has mass, thus can be measured. "God" lives outside time and space, and can not be physically proven to exist (although, of course, he cannot be physically disproven to exist either)

However, looking into history, it's easy to see why these "incoherently evil" non-believers didn't want to follow him. Simple--Christianity was still new, and they already had other gods to worship. Just like you feel the need to defend yourself right now, they weren't just going to drop their existing beliefs and say, "Hey! This God guy sounds all right! My god sucks--Why don't I worship this one!"

Don't argue without giving reason. Explain WHY you know for sure God doesn't exist.

I can go on and on about inconsistencies in the bible. And I would like to remind you that the bible is the unerring and perfect word of God, written by God. The word of God is timeless, and should apply no matter what, correct? God says himself in the bible,

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

That means that everything that God commands in the bible, applies as well to the 21st century.

But what if God was wrong?

For example--do you believe in slavery? Do you think that the buying and selling of human beings is morally just? God does, apparantly. And there is pretty considerable proof in the bible that God is a pretty substantial supporter of slavery. For example,

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.

Here, God acknowleges that people buy and sell other people, and does not seem to have a problem with it. God wants slaves circumcised the same way as non-slaves.

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.

Above, God shows again that he is comfortable with slavery, and singles slaves out for special treatment.

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Now God gives specific instructions on how to treat a slave, and is quite comfortable with the idea of splitting up families. Plus, he completely endorses the idea of branding slaves through mutilation.

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

God now not only shows he's completely comfortable with the idea of slavery, but also says it's OK to beat your slaves--so long as you do not kill them.

I'll give you one more.

If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Again, God shows that he is completely comfortable with the idea of slavery. Note that God is not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of inflation. It is now 3,000 years later, and a gored slave is still worth 30 shekels of silver according to God's word.

Need I go on here?

Why is it, also, that God never had a commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Enslave," if he were not completely comfortable with the idea of people buying and selling each other?

Now I ask again--Do you believe in slavery? Do you believe that buying and selling other human beings is morally just?

If you do not, you are directly defying God's Word.

I'm sure you follow the Ten Commandments, correct? But how can you follow one part of the bible, yet not other parts?

I have plenty more examples of outrageous things like this contained in the bible. If you would like me to expand on them, I will, but for now I'll try to keep this as short as possible.

The point is, the Bible is supposed to be the unerring and perfect word of God, written by God. Now, however, take into consideration that the bible could have simply been written by primative men, three thousand some-odd years ago. If even part of it is not written by God, then the whole thing cannot be taken seriously.

Does that make any sense to you?

And explain where we go after we die. If we just didn't exist anymore after life, then wouldn't that make life meaningless? May as well just slit your wrists now.

I do not understand how having an afterlife of sorts makes life any more important. When you consider that there is nothing to look forward to when you die, I think that makes life that much more precious. You learn to love and cherish the things important to you in life, knowing that there is nothing awaiting you after you die.

Doing good deeds in order to get yourself a golden ticket to heaven is a self centered and selfish practice. I myself practice being a good person simply for the recognition and appreciation of others. I do not expect an Ultimate Reward, I do not expect to see some "paradise" in the sky.

If anything good can be salvaged from the bible, it would be following Jesus as a role model. He knew what a wretched fate awaited him, but he did not "slit his wrists" as you say.

If that's truly how you feel about there not being an afterlife, then I truly pity you.

Denominations are man's way of perverting the Gospel to fit it's wants. Like the Mormons, they believe that they can have multiple wives. Come on, that isn't even legal in the U.S. Why should God let man get away with something like that.

So you admit that there is a mass incoherence at hand. How can you be absolutely sure, that without a doubt your denomination is completely true? The Word of God should not be that ambiguous to figure out.

Explain the world without God. You still have the "What if God exists?"

I shouldn't have to repeat what you were replying to, but I will.

By simply taking into account that god is imaginary, all of the mysteries, all of the unexplained inconsistencies in religion, all of the "what if"s dissappear, and the world suddenly makes sense.

God doesn't allow his believers to suffer. If you truely follow His Word and believe in Him with all your heart, we will never let you suffer in this world.

Things happen for a reason. Some of those children may have had serious problems later in life, and God didn't want them to suffer. As for the child the gunman let live, God may have given them a chance to change their beliefs.

But the families of those who were killed undoubtedly suffered, wouldn't you say? Look at the big picture. Those who are murdered are not the only people who are affected by the event.

Once again, those millions of praying "believers" in Africa may not be following the correct word.

The bible is the perfect and unerring word of God, written by God. If they are not following the correct word, what are they following?

Yeah, I agree on making this world a better place, but I'd like to see the pleasure in Heaven, and not what's going on in Hell. And once again, explain why there is nothing after death.

Once again, making the world a better place is great. But you can't turn something that is incoherently evil into something good.

What about the world is incoherently evil? Perhaps you do not understand what the word "incoherent" means?

Incoherent

1. Lacking cohesion, connection, or harmony; not coherent: incoherent fragments of a story.
2. Unable to think or express one's thoughts in a clear or orderly manner: incoherent with grief.

The only evil in the world, are people. Humans. Not some mischevious little diety. Placing blame for evil on anything else is counter-productive, and will never get anything accomplished. It is nothing but a cop-out, where people do not want to admit their own mistakes.

[Aliotroph?]

I think they should explain why life needs meaning. I don't see that it does. You want your life to have a meaning the give it one. Your actions certainly have a lot of significance after you die at any rate. A meaning defined by a big invisible guy in the sky isn't any better than a meaning defined by people who want to do things that are good, interesting, or will last a long time.

Nomad has the right idea that governments should be impartial to the various religions. This also has to be extended to people's colour, culture, sex, age, etc. Sadly, attempts at this turn into a reverse bias all the time. People are stupid.

[Nomad]

Nomad has the right idea that governments should be impartial to the various religions.

That's not even really what I am saying. I think that religion should simply just not be recognized by the government, period.

[jetflock]

well, i was being very general about it...lemme just say, religion should just be the first to go! :)

[Aliotroph?]

That's not even really what I am saying. I think that religion should simply just not be recognized by the government, period.

Wouldn't that be the same thing? Most churches would still get status as non-profit charities (because churches tend to do that stuff) but it would end up being a lot like I said. It's already close to that in Canada except that we let people get away with all kinds of crap like modifying their work uniforms for religious reasons.

[KuriKai]

"Wendt", a hardcore religious guy, claims that a mass-murder/rapist/robber can be saved by accepting God as his/her savior, but an athiest will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS go to hell. WTG?!

Because in the bible it says that if you look on a women in lust you have commited adultry, if you steal anything, even if it is as small as a 5cent coin you are a thief.

So everyone on this world falls short of gods standards (yes even christians and catholics*1(even the pope) )Because he is perfect .

So everyone will go to hell.


I would like to note that most of the worlds population belive in the same god (the god of abraham issac and jacob)

*1) note catholics are not christians

[Aliotroph?]

Catholics are indeed Christians. There seems to be some funny rumour claiming otherwise floating around. Check out the second paragraph. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian) :p

[KuriKai]

So mormons and jehovas witness are christians too?

If that's the case I'm not a christian... I'm a follower of christ.
Damn that still comes under christianity.

[FATAL]

Because in the bible it says that if you look on a women in lust you have commited adultry, if you steal anything, even if it is as small as a 5cent coin you are a thief.

So everyone on this world falls short of gods standards (yes even christians and catholics*1(even the pope) )Because he is perfect .

So everyone will go to hell.


I would like to note that most of the worlds population belive in the same god (the god of abraham issac and jacob)

*1) note catholics are not christians

Did you just comment on that one paragraph, and disregard the rest of the page?
Because I'd love to see some answers from the christian point of view.


Yes, religions need to be abolished. There are so many reasons that it's hard to name them all, but in addition to those said before in this thread, I have one more.

The fact that the kids in US are taught by the bible rather than science in certain matters is absolutely horrible. How is it possible that evolution is taught as an equal theory as creationism? this totally makes kids just what they're wanted to be, bricks in the wall, not capable of thinking for themselves. They are taught that god created it all 6000 years ago, and that's it. Oh, there was also this some dude named Darwin, but don't care about him, he was just some nutcase geezer.

Also, Bush stopped funding to stem-cell research due to research. Again we see how religion halts rational thinking, and actually causes much more harm than good. I say that religion harms society just as much as some extreme ideologies gone wrong.

[Looney]

That's not even really what I am saying. I think that religion should simply just not be recognized by the government, period.

Never fear, in time you will get your wish.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

[Johanbeyl]

Why is it that you always hear of people who never believed in anything their whole lives and then just before they die they want to believe in something, they want someone who believes to pray for them?

I don't get that someone who does not believe their whole lives and even preach about it, changes on their deathbed. Is there something in them that makes dread the question :"What if there is a God?". What is better? Dying with the peace of mind that if there is an afterlife you will go there or dying not knowing? I guess that's the choice.

I believe, because praying has helped me through some really rough times. And yes, things didn't improve when I didn't pray. So whether it's God or not, I believe in the power of prayer at least.

I agree with a lot of what was said about goverments etc, but religion should be free choice and those choices should be respected if mutual respect is shown for other people's choices to believe or not to believe.

One last thing - the crucifix isn't a bassball bat - let's keep it that way.

[Nomad]

Never fear, in time you will get your wish.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Because I do not believe in god, I am selfish? Because I do not believe in god, I intend to steal my neighbors' goods? Because I do not believe in god I am self centered? Because I do not believe in god I am full of myself? Because I do not believe in god, I purposly go out and blaspheme, for shits and giggles? Because I do not believe in god, I do not respect my parents? Because I do not believe in god, I do not love and cherish the things that are given to me?

Bullshit.

2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Because I do not believe in god, I am incapable of love? Because I do not believe in god, I am incapable of keeping promises? Because I do not believe in god, I lie and blame others for my own mistakes? Because I do not believe in god, I am unable to show self restraing; or I do not control my sexual drive(^1)? Because I do not believe in god, I am wrathful? Because I do not believe in god, I hate anything that is good?

Bullshit.

2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;


2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Because I do not believe in god, I am unable to keep someone's trust? I don't even know what "heady" is supposed to mean. Because I do not believe in god, I am haughty? Because I do not believe in god, I believe I am god?

Bullshit.

Looney, the next time you read the bible, or anything in it, don't just read it. Listen to it, and analyse it with your heart and with your mind. Is the text you just quoted, some amazing piece of brilliance, that astonishes you and leaves you in awe, like writing from an all-knowing, and all-loving being should be?

No. It is utter nonsense. Close minded drivel, preaching about intolerance.

(^1: I am what is known as "StraightEdge". I do not drink, I do not do drugs, and I do not sleep around. I do not believe in god, yet how is it that I am able to show such self restraint?)

[Looney]

Why can't you just accept that I dissagree with you. I will not bend to your possition. You seem to be dead set that you are correct and that you know better, that is arrogent in more ways than I can discribe. There is not one man that has all the answers including yourself.

How dare you profess you know my heart and my understanding. How Arrogent of you.

Enjoy your folly Nomad, See yea on Judgment day.

I have had enough of this so don't expect any futher responce.

[Nomad]

Why can't you just accept that I dissagree with you. I will not bend to your possition. You seem to be dead set that you are correct and that you know better, that is arrogent in more ways than I can discribe. There is not one man that has all the answers including yourself.

I will readily admit that there are many questions in the world that we simply do not have answers to. There are plenty of unknowns. I do not claim to be absolutely correct. As I said before, I am doing nothing more than what the evangelists of your church do.

If I am arrogant, you are close minded and intolerant, just like the book I gather that you live by. I suppose you condone slavery, misogyny, sacrafice, and baby killing too?

How dare you profess you know my heart and my understanding. How Arrogent of you.

Enjoy your folly Nomad, See yea on Judgment day.

I have had enough of this so don't expect any futher responce.

I do not profess to know your heart and understanding. You simply quoted something from the bible, with little explanation why. So I only can assume or guess what your understanding of the text is. Are you calling me all of those things that the passage claims about athiests? Or what? What was your intention of that text?

Sure. I'll see you on Judgement Day. If it ever comes. You are welcome to and are welcome to not read this thread and respond. Your own choice. Do whatever you like.

[eX_Do0mY]

For example--do you believe in slavery? Do you think that the buying and selling of human beings is morally just? God does, apparantly. And there is pretty considerable proof in the bible that God is a pretty substantial supporter of slavery. For example,

Ok, if God supports slavery so much, why did he tell Moses to free the Jewish slaves and bring them to the promised land? And you are looking at the Old Testament. The old rules are not applicable to today's times. That's why He brought about the new covenant, the New Testament, which took effect after Jesus Christ died for your selfishness and intolerance on the cross.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

This describes your average Celebrity, yuppie, Satanic worshippers, atheists, spoiled brats, and non-believers. They don't have to be all the same at once like Nomad thinks.

2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

These verses tell you to steer clear of any people like that.

Catholics are indeed Christians. There seems to be some funny rumour claiming otherwise floating around. Check out the second paragraph.

The Pope is basically your modern day false prophet. Catholics basically worship the Pope. And I don't see anywhere in the Bible that you can go out and go hog wild and come and confess your sins to the priest and you'll be all clean again. This explains my reasoning of denominations.

Because in the bible it says that if you look on a women in lust you have commited adultry, if you steal anything, even if it is as small as a 5cent coin you are a thief.

So everyone on this world falls short of gods standards (yes even christians and catholics*1(even the pope) )Because he is perfect .

So everyone will go to hell.

Wrong. That's why God gave up his only son, Jesus Christ. He gave him up on the cross for the fact that men are not perfect.

I'm sorry. After reading some of these comments, something tells me some of you aren't exactly educated in some religions, and therefore can't put up a reasonable arguement. Example, KuriKai's comment. He didn't even know about Jesus.

I can see this thread is going straight to Hell, I can see a locking somewhere in the future.

[Nomad]

So the Old Testament is inapplicable? Why is that? Is it not still the Unerring and Perfect Word of God, Written by God? How can you pick and choose the passages you follow like that?

Have you forgotten?

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

How can you choose what part of the Word of God is correct?

By the way, the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament as well. Do you not follow those then?

Also, I am sorry that you feel that since I do not agree with your beliefs, that this thread should be locked. Would it be different if I were arguing with Islam or Hindu, instead of "preaching" non-religion?

[edit]At any rate, there is still evidence that God is completely comfortable with Slavery in the New Testament as well, so your argument is invalid.

Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

Here, Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the Centurion owning a slave. He proceeds to heal the slave, without showing any intent to free the slave or chastising the slave owner.

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...

Here, God shows that he is in complete acceptance of slavery, and acknowleges their position, and encourages them to work hard. He says something similar in Titus Chapter 2, Verse 9.

Need I continue?

[eX_Do0mY]

So the Old Testament is inapplicable? Why is that? Is it not still the Unerring and Perfect Word of God, Written by God? How can you pick and choose the passages you follow like that?

I chose to follow the Word. The Word says the people of today don't have to follow the rules of the old Testament. If you'll continue to read the New Testament, then you'll see that it has many of the same rules, just a different approach to becoming worthy to enter Heaven due to Jesus Christ's death.

How can you choose what part of the Word of God is correct?

I never said it was wrong, just not applicable to today's world anymore.

By the way, the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament as well. Do you not follow those then?

Of course I follow them, they're still around because they are good values to have.

Also, I am sorry that you feel that since I do not agree with your beliefs, that this thread should be locked. Would it be different if I were arguing with Islam or Hindu, instead of "preaching" non-religion?

I never said this thread deserved locking because of our arguement. You're putting words in my mouth now. I wasn't trying to flame you for your beliefs, believe it or not. I'm just putting up a strong arguement. Really, by starting this thread, you asked for a flaming. That's why this specific topic was banned. To keep guys like us under control.

[edit]At any rate, there is still evidence that God is completely comfortable with Slavery in the New Testament as well, so your argument is invalid.

Here, Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the Centurion owning a slave. He proceeds to heal the slave, without showing any intent to free the slave or chastising the slave owner.

Here, God shows that he is in complete acceptance of slavery, and acknowleges their position, and encourages them to work hard. He says something similar in Titus Chapter 2, Verse 9.

New covenant hasn't taken effect yet. Therefore, slavery may have still been an accepted standard. Also, slaves could be slaves for a reason. The slaves may have done some misdemeanor towards their laws. They may have been slaves as punishment. The Bible also says to follow the rules of the land.

Need I continue?

Please do.

[Nomad]

I am not following your logic. "The Old Testament is no longer applicable, and the New Testament says so." To me, that is like God saying, "Well, I was wrong before--but I swear I've got it this time?"

That specifically goes against this quote, which I will present once again:

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Which specifically states that the word of god, which includes the Old Testament, stands forever. Of course, that is said in the Old Testament itself, though, so I guess it doesn't matter, right?

If the Old Testament is not applicable, then how come it is still taught and embraced by Christians everywhere? Why is it included in the bible period if it is not applicable? Shouldn't the bible, then, be simply the New Testament, and whenever ministers need references to the Old Testament, they take out the dusty old Torah from behind the altar?

However, I can see that you are not convinced that your god embraces and condones Slavery. How do you feel about women? Do you feel that women are equal to men in the eyes of the Lord?

They're not. Behold, the word of God:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

That clearly states that women are to keep silent in church. "They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission". That is sexism, plain as day.

Here's more:
Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." There it is again. Yet we completely defy God's Word today, by filling our schools with female teachers. Corporations have female CEOs, there are females running our national government!

Both of those are in the New Testament as well, I might add. God clearly states woman's place in the world. Need more?

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

Not only is this passage somewhat confusing, it is completely abhorring to me. How can an all-loving god profess that women and men are not equals?

God has shown his disdain for women since the beginning of the bible, as demonstrated in Genesis:
This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

There is no mention of how women should show their "sign of the covenant" to the Holy Father. So women are doomed from the beginning.

There are many, man other signs in the Bible that show God's misogyny.
In John 20:17, Jesus says to Mary, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, yet a few verses later he is perfectly happy to have Thomas touch him.
In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.
In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we find this: "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives." So, what God is saying is if you are a man, and you rape a girl, she gets to be your wife. Very nice.
In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.
In Numbers 31:14-18 we find: "Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Making sex slaves of women apparently is God's will.None of Jesus' apostles were women. None of the elders in the book of Revelation were women. None of the books of the Bible were written by women.

It would appear that God does not want anything to do with women.

Picture yourself as an unbiased observer. Say, you are a Buddhist monk who has lived far up in the Himalayas all of your life, and are reading the Bible for the first time. Do you think it is truly OK for a God to act this way? Is this the All-Loving God that you worship?

Well, it is.

I really wish that I were making these things up. But there it all is, plain as day, in the Unerring and Perfect Word of God, Written by God.

[DooMAD]

I can see you're having a great time dismantling the bible page by page, but it still doesn't change the fact that it would be inherently wrong to forcefully try to deny people thier beliefs by abolishing religion. You might not belive it, you might mock it, you might deem it complete and utter nonsense. I share similar views, but it's not your's, mine nor anyone else's to take away. Just because the bible was written by men with views that don't equate to modern western culture, you can't simply reach the conclusion that everyone who follows the general teachings of a religion is backwards and expect them to abandon the things they were raised to respect.

[Nomad]

Ignorance tends to lead towards confusion and anxiety, which often leads to hate. I can give plenty of real-world examples of that. I merely wish to remove that hate from the world by educating about a different world without that ignorace-induced hate. As I have clamed before, I am doing nothing more than what church evangelists do. Only, I'm not proposing doing it door to door, but world wide.

[Aliotroph?]

It's funny when people try and convert each other on the net. The nature of true belief in anything resists attempts at this sort of argument.

Why can't you just accept that I dissagree with you. I will not bend to your possition.

Looney wins. :p I think his religion is utterly wrong (based on his other posts) but he still wins. If he cared about doing what you're doing then he'd lose too and nobody wins.

[Nomad]

I do understand that I am being a hypocrite. But should I really be condemned for having good intentions?

[Aliotroph?]

No, just for not realizing that you're probably wasting a lot of your time by bothering to dig so deeply through a Bible to find all those quotations. :p Then again, who am I to care if you waste your time doing that? I'm basically wasting my time by arguing that. *head explodes*

[eX_Do0mY]

I am not following your logic. "The Old Testament is no longer applicable, and the New Testament says so." To me, that is like God saying, "Well, I was wrong before--but I swear I've got it this time?"

He had to make adjustments for today's new world. Sacrificing animals wouldn't be acceptable by today's standards.

Which specifically states that the word of god, which includes the Old Testament, stands forever. Of course, that is said in the Old Testament itself, though, so I guess it doesn't matter, right?

The Old Testaments stands. It is still being preached about in today's churches, and the Jewish religion is based on it.

If the Old Testament is not applicable, then how come it is still taught and embraced by Christians everywhere? Why is it included in the bible period if it is not applicable? Shouldn't the bible, then, be simply the New Testament, and whenever ministers need references to the Old Testament, they take out the dusty old Torah from behind the altar?

Some stories mentioned in the Old Testament can be tought as lessions, and good morality can come from them.

However, I can see that you are not convinced that your god embraces and condones Slavery. How do you feel about women? Do you feel that women are equal to men in the eyes of the Lord?

They're not. Behold, the word of God:

That clearly states that women are to keep silent in church. "They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission". That is sexism, plain as day.

It seems wherever I go to Church, no one speaks while the Preacher teaches the Word.

"I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." There it is again. Yet we completely defy God's Word today, by filling our schools with female teachers. Corporations have female CEOs, there are females running our national government!

When it says "teach," it means teach the Word of God. Not common education. Sure, Hillary Clinton may be in a high position of our Government, but she doesn't have any authority over George Bush does she?

There is no mention of how women should show their "sign of the covenant" to the Holy Father. So women are doomed from the beginning.

Doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that a woman can't be baptised or pray to God does it? Show me.

In John 20:17, Jesus says to Mary, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, yet a few verses later he is perfectly happy to have Thomas touch him.

"Touching" can be referred to as public display of affection.

In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.

Eve disobeyed God by following the serpent. Adam didn't know what he was doing. God had every right to punish Eve.

In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we find this: "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives." So, what God is saying is if you are a man, and you rape a girl, she gets to be your wife. Very nice.

OK, this goes along with sex before wedlock. That was unacceptable before, so amendments on man's part had to be made.

In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

OK. Here we have a questionable thing. Wives have some right. For example, sex. A wife has the right under the land's laws that she doesn't have to have sex because of what her husband says. If the husband forces that onto her, that's called rape. Remember, man has to follow the rules of the land too, and that includes respecting the woman that is his wife.

In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.

Because that verse alone makes no sense, I read the verses after it. This is talking about how men should look at the world. It says to look at the world as an evil place, and love nothing worldly. Men and the women's children could pass the word along to the women if the women inquired about that subject, as indicated in one of your previous listed verses.

In Numbers 31:14-18 we find: "Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Making sex slaves of women apparently is God's will. None of Jesus' apostles were women. None of the elders in the book of Revelation were women. None of the books of the Bible were written by women.

It never said the men would sleep with the women. They could be simply holding them captive. Stop perverting the word of God.

Picture yourself as an unbiased observer. Say, you are a Buddhist monk who has lived far up in the Himalayas all of your life, and are reading the Bible for the first time. Do you think it is truly OK for a God to act this way? Is this the All-Loving God that you worship?

Ok, I'll put myself into these shoes. Buddhists are known for their great discipline and are very just in their actions. I think the Buddhists would agree with many of the actions of God. Remember, God loves all, but he is just. The world is here for a reason, and it could be a test of just how loyal you are to the Lord.

I really wish that I were making these things up. But there it all is, plain as day, in the Unerring and Perfect Word of God, Written by God.

Ok, put yourself in God's shoes. Let's say you're sitting up in Heaven, with your only son Jesus Christ sitting at your right hand. You gave him up for the fact that man is not perfect, and without Jesus, would not be able to enter your kingdom of Heaven.

Now, down on Earth, you have 6 billion people, of which a small minority truely believe in you and love you with all your heart. Wouldn't you want to show them mercy in the world and allow them to have a prosperous live on Earth? I would.

Now, the other picture. You have the majority of the world, which are non-believers, believers of other "Gods," etc. Would you want to help them, if they don't even believe you exist? When you're in this situation, God shows you mercy by letting you live another day on Earth in the means you are living. Remember, any day God could come and see that your name is not in that Lamb's Book of Life, and he would cast you into the lake of fire.

[KuriKai]

I'm sorry. After reading some of these comments, something tells me some of you aren't exactly educated in some religions, and therefore can't put up a reasonable arguement. Example, KuriKai's comment. He didn't even know about Jesus.

I can see this thread is going straight to Hell, I can see a locking somewhere in the future.

Yes I do know about jesus I just did not say anything about it as that was not my point.
I was trying to show theat everyone is a sinner.

[jetflock]

its al about the sumarians anyways, they're religion was hacked up and re-distributed. i almost have a feeling that christianity and all that old egyptian shit are really the same thing, or evolved from the same thing and changed a bit.
you have similar creation stories/myths running about each one. every religion has it's moses, commandments and the like. meh. sorry i can't be more specific, i just like to crap out the first thoughts my brain has.
religion can be a good thing, but as long as its run by man...er...."corrupted" men....you are always going to have some problems....its great to still be living in the past.

[eX_Do0mY]

Yes I do know about jesus I just did not say anything about it as that was not my point.
I was trying to show theat everyone is a sinner.

Oh, well sorry then. It was the comment about "If you aren't perfect then you're going to Hell" that threw me off. You didn't mention Jesus, so I thought you were a little uneducated. Sorry about that *thumbs*

[rustyslacker]

I'll settle the Biblical debating right here.

The Bible is an unreliable source. Like any text, passages can be taken out of context and twisted to mean anything. Every religion takes all of its "evidence" from their holy text. But, if these holy texts are really as old as they are believed to be, how would they stay 100% accurate, 100% reliable, and 100% Word of God through thousands of years and hundreds of translations?

Furthermore, how can the Bible in particular be accurate if there are so many different versions of the Bible? How is an innocent follower to know which one is "right"? How is any follower to know which denomination of Christianity is right? Hmm?

And if this hypothetical follower was, for example, to be a starving, impoverished man in Africa, would God, in his all-loving and all-forgiving ways, ABANDON this man because he follows the "wrong" word and reads the "wrong" Bible?
Once again, those millions of praying "believers" in Africa may not be following the correct word.
Bullshit.

[KuriKai]

The Bible is an unreliable source. Like any text, passages can be taken out of context and twisted to mean anything. Every religion takes all of its "evidence" from their holy text. But, if these holy texts are really as old as they are believed to be, how would they stay 100% accurate, 100% reliable, and 100% Word of God through thousands of years and hundreds of translations?

Ever heard of the dead sea scrolls?

Furthermore, how can the Bible in particular be accurate if there are so many different versions of the Bible? How is an innocent follower to know which one is "right"? How is any follower to know which denomination of Christianity is right? Hmm?

As far as I know, all christians (not including catholics, mormons, jehovas witnesses and those kind or religion) read the same version.

[rustyslacker]

(not including catholics, mormons, jehovas witnesses and those kind or religion)
And those people "don't count" and are going to burn in Hell forevar?

[eX_Do0mY]

And those people "don't count" and are going to burn in Hell forevar?

Yes, because they don't follow the correct word. I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says Heaven will be on Earth (Jehovah Witnesses), you can have multiple wives (Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, AKA Mormons), or that you can do whatever you want outside of Church and still be considered faithful (Catholics).

All protestant denominations read from the King James Version, a direct translation to English from the original Hebrew writings. 1 translation loses very little, mostly affecting sentence structure.

[rustyslacker]

Yes, because they don't follow the correct word.
So they are to be ABANDONED by God, who is supposed to be all-knowing, all-forgiving, and all-loving? *squint*

And this applies to atheists, Hindus, agnostics, Buddhists, etc.?! *squint* *squint* *squint*

[shtbag667]

I agree with pretty much everything from Nomad's first post. Instead of outlawing religion though, I think it would be better to teach everyone critical thinking and the scientific method. Maybe everyone should be given a copy of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan. If people were more scientifically literate then over time they would drift more and more away from religion as they replace faith with skepitism. I consider myself living proof of this concept.

[eX_Do0mY]

So they are to be ABANDONED by God, who is supposed to be all-knowing, all-forgiving, and all-loving? *squint*

And this applies to atheists, Hindus, agnostics, Buddhists, etc.?! *squint* *squint* *squint*

Not necessarily abandoned, if you ask Him, you'll get forgiveness.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

To truely believe, you must follow the correct word, and have no ifs, or buts about the Lord. Baptism makes you reborn into the Lord, and is a method of confession to the Lord. Saying the Sinner's Prayer isn't a good enough confession for your love towards the Lord.

Cold hard truth for you to look at.

Remember, if you don't follow the correct word, and don't follow it as a whole, you aren't being truely faithful to Him, and in essence don't really worship Him. Remember, God gave man free will. Man doesn't have to be a atheist, hindu, buddhist, satanist, or Christian for that matter.

[Aliotroph?]

I agree with pretty much everything from Nomad's first post. Instead of outlawing religion though, I think it would be better to teach everyone critical thinking and the scientific method. Maybe everyone should be given a copy of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan. If people were more scientifically literate then over time they would drift more and more away from religion as they replace faith with skepitism. I consider myself living proof of this concept.

Interesting how bad schools, even good schools, are at doing that. Somehow I doubt most people are going to be swayed by Carl Sagan though. I suspect a lot of the people I met in high school couldn't read well enough to get through anything written by Carl Sagan.

I think if I were Christian I'd have trouble sleeping at night, thinking about those poor bushmen in Africa who have certainly never heard of Jesus. I suppose the same could be said of any religious group that meets a society where things work completely differently. England does tend to lack Volcano gods after all.

[MR_ROCKET]

Religion on a game forum seems kinda confusing to me. :D
That and the whole thing is confusing to everyone because it's something we cant fully understand.

Everyone alive today are just bits and pieces of everyone else passed on through well, the seeds of our existence. From the beginning, going by the Doc's heh, is all we have, our own compilation of passed events as a whole this is what we have evolved around one way or the other in its type of religion. Well going by something that is so old and nothing being changed about it in such a long time, then it must be something to live by and someone, something to look up to? Whether we are tragedy stricken or spoiled rotten, if you take everything away, what it boils down to is, if no one is there for you, your either going to have to save yourself or ask god for help or to help someone else because that's all we would have in the beginning after all, right?

[Nomad]

He had to make adjustments for today's new world. Sacrificing animals wouldn't be acceptable by today's standards.

Now, why did he not make it "acceptable by today's standards" in the first place? Shouldnt' an all-knowing god be able to do that?

But to be perfectly honest, the New Testament is nothing really special in terms of knowlege for "today's standards" anyway. Reading the bible does not leave me with a sense of awe like I expect something to have been written by a supreme, all knowing being. Nothing revolutionary.

But whatever.



The Old Testaments stands. It is still being preached about in today's churches, and the Jewish religion is based on it.

No shit. Notice how I mentioned the Torah in my last comments? That means I'm not fucking stupid. Christianity is also still based on the Old Testament. I still do not follow your logic that the Old Testament does not apply. In the Lutheran church I went to, and was taught nothing like that. The bible in its entirety is the Unerring and Perfect Word of God, Written by God. That includes everything in the bible--From Genesis to Revelation.

Which brings back the "mass incoherence" argument that I will not give up. I will ask here again, for the third time, How can you be absolutely, completely without a doubt, sure that your denomination is the true word?

Some stories mentioned in the Old Testament can be tought as lessions, and good morality can come from them.

Aesop told stories that contain messages of good morality as well, but they were all fairy tales. What's the difference? They both get the point across--why drag souls and supreme beings into it?

It seems wherever I go to Church, no one speaks while the Preacher teaches the Word.

The writing there is not ambiguous. God plainly states Women are not to speak in church. And it does not say, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches when the preacher is teaching the word." It specifically implicates women should remain silent not only in churches, but in "all the congregations of the saints" as well. Not "everyone" should be silent. WOMEN.

It is not that hard to read the words that are on the page and listen to what they say. By adding your interpretation, you are putting words in God's mouth.

At that, If what is said in the bible is not to be taken literally, then that applies to EVERYTHING in the bible. That means that Heaven and Hell are metaphors, and everything is reduced to nothing but fairy tales. And maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think anyone has ever killed in the name of Aesop or the Brothers Grimm.

God knows that people are fucking stupid, and needs to spell everything out for us. Otherwise, we do exactly what we have and make different interpretations, and that is the true source of the mass incoherence of the religion.

When it says "teach," it means teach the Word of God. Not common education. Sure, Hillary Clinton may be in a high position of our Government, but she doesn't have any authority over George Bush does she?

Again, you are putting words in God's mouth. It does not say "Women shall not teach the word". It says "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." There should be no room for interpretation. God specifically used these words, and to say he means otherwise is actively denying his Perfect and Unerring Word.

Doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that a woman can't be baptised or pray to God does it? Show me.

You are avoiding the point. God gives Men a special way to show their dedication. But what about women?

"Touching" can be referred to as public display of affection.

No. Again, you are putting words into God's mouth. If he meant "public display of affection," he would have said so.

Eve disobeyed God by following the serpent. Adam didn't know what he was doing. God had every right to punish Eve.

Bullshit. God told both of them not to partake of the forbidden fruit. It's bullshit to punish women more because Eve fucked up first.

OK, this goes along with sex before wedlock. That was unacceptable before, so amendments on man's part had to be made.

Listen to the words again. Whether the Old Testament still applies or not, God specifically stated there that if a man rapes a virgin, he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver, and must become her husband. God is stating that it is OK to rape a woman, by not specifically stating that a man should be stoned for it or something similar.

I don't care what century's standards you are living by, it is NEVER OK to commit rape. By not specifically condemning it, God is specifically demonstrating that he is completely comfortable with rape and that it is OK.

OK. Here we have a questionable thing. Wives have some right. For example, sex. A wife has the right under the land's laws that she doesn't have to have sex because of what her husband says. If the husband forces that onto her, that's called rape. Remember, man has to follow the rules of the land too, and that includes respecting the woman that is his wife.

Again, god specifically states that "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,...so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.". Again, adding interpretation is putting words in his mouth. He specifically says that women should submit to their husbands. And I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that included rape, because God has already demonstrated he is comfortable with the idea.

Because that verse alone makes no sense, I read the verses after it. This is talking about how men should look at the world. It says to look at the world as an evil place, and love nothing worldly. Men and the women's children could pass the word along to the women if the women inquired about that subject, as indicated in one of your previous listed verses.

But women are not allowed to find out for themselves?

It never said the men would sleep with the women. They could be simply holding them captive. Stop perverting the word of God.

Hypocrite. I don't even feel the need to argue here.

Ok, I'll put myself into these shoes. Buddhists are known for their great discipline and are very just in their actions. I think the Buddhists would agree with many of the actions of God. Remember, God loves all, but he is just. The world is here for a reason, and it could be a test of just how loyal you are to the Lord.

God still demonstrates a prevelant disfavor for women. Deny it all you wish. It is there, right in plain view, and "perverting the word of God" is precicely what you are doing.


Ok, put yourself in God's shoes. Let's say you're sitting up in Heaven, with your only son Jesus Christ sitting at your right hand. You gave him up for the fact that man is not perfect, and without Jesus, would not be able to enter your kingdom of Heaven.

Now, down on Earth, you have 6 billion people, of which a small minority truely believe in you and love you with all your heart. Wouldn't you want to show them mercy in the world and allow them to have a prosperous live on Earth? I would.

Now, the other picture. You have the majority of the world, which are non-believers, believers of other "Gods," etc. Would you want to help them, if they don't even believe you exist? When you're in this situation, God shows you mercy by letting you live another day on Earth in the means you are living. Remember, any day God could come and see that your name is not in that Lamb's Book of Life, and he would cast you into the lake of fire.

I can tell you exactly what I would have done if I were god. I would have chosen my words more carefully, for one thing. I know first hand how utterly stupid humans are, so I wouldn't fill my "Word" with such utter stupidity. I would fill my texts with enlightening speech, with timeless themes that won't become obsolete in several centuries.

I would literally SPELL things out for humans, giving them absolutely no room for interpretation.

I don't care what century you live in--Slavery is wrong, and being an all-loving being, I would not allow my creations to enslave each other, and I would emhasize such from the beginning. I wouldn't later say, "Oh yeah--Even though I was OK with it before, maybe you shouldnt' do that anymore..." I would deem "Thou Shalt Not Enslave" the Eleventh Commandment.

And I can go on, but I'm sure it does no good. Obviously I am not God, and you obviously will never open your mind enough to consider that perhaps you are wrong.

Yes, I realize that is hypocritical of me to say with the way that I continue to argue, and with the proposals I have brought up in this thread, but I guess that's inevitable. Oh well.

[KuriKai]

Which brings back the "mass incoherence" argument that I will not give up. I will ask here again, for the third time, How can you be absolutely, completely without a doubt, sure that your denomination is the true word?
And how are you so sure that there is no god, that if there is you are willing to spend all eternity in hell?


It is not that hard to read the words that are on the page and listen to what they say. By adding your interpretation, you are putting words in God's mouth.

At that, If what is said in the bible is not to be taken literally, then that applies to EVERYTHING in the bible. That means that Heaven and Hell are metaphors, and everything is reduced to nothing but fairy tales.
It is not told in a fairytale/story/myth format It is written as history.

Bullshit. God told both of them not to partake of the forbidden fruit. It's bullshit to punish women more because Eve fucked up first.
Then why would they punish a person who robs a bank more than the getaway driver?

I can tell you exactly what I would have done if I were god. I would have chosen my words more carefully, for one thing. I know first hand how utterly stupid humans are, so I wouldn't fill my "Word" with such utter stupidity. I would fill my texts with enlightening speech, with timeless themes that won't become obsolete in several centuries.
What do you think the bible is about?

I would literally SPELL things out for humans, giving them absolutely no room for interpretation.
That is the ten comandments.

And I can go on, but I'm sure it does no good. Obviously I am not God, and you obviously will never open your mind enough to consider that perhaps you are wrong.
We can say the same to you.


All we can do is warn you. and then it is up to you to decide^^

[Nomad]

And how are you so sure that there is no god, that if there is you are willing to spend all eternity in hell?

What?

It is not told in a fairytale/story/myth format It is written as history.

I can give you plenty of examples of historical fiction.

Then why would they punish a person who robs a bank more than the getaway driver?

They are guilty of separate crimes. Adam and Eve both partaking of the forbidden fruit were in violation of the same "law" set forth by God, thus there is no reason for unequal punishment.

I can tell you exactly what I would have done if I were god. I would have chosen my words more carefully, for one thing. I know first hand how utterly stupid humans are, so I wouldn't fill my "Word" with such utter stupidity. I would fill my texts with enlightening speech, with timeless themes that won't become obsolete in several centuries.What do you think the bible is about?

Ask eX_DoOmY. He said himself that the Old Testament is no longer applicable. Why would God write something that he would later contradict when he should write something timeless in the first place?


That is the ten comandments.

Then the rest is nothing but filler that causes more problems than it is worth.


We can say the same to you.

I already admitted my hypocrisy, and that is not the point.

[eX_Do0mY]

Now, why did he not make it "acceptable by today's standards" in the first place? Shouldnt' an all-knowing god be able to do that?

Remember, man has free will. You stated that yourself. God knew that man was going to reject things like animal sacrifice, so he amended accordingly.

But to be perfectly honest, the New Testament is nothing really special in terms of knowlege for "today's standards" anyway. Reading the bible does not leave me with a sense of awe like I expect something to have been written by a supreme, all knowing being. Nothing revolutionary.

It's not "revolutionary" because you are living in it.

No shit. Notice how I mentioned the Torah in my last comments? That means I'm not fucking stupid. Christianity is also still based on the Old Testament. I still do not follow your logic that the Old Testament does not apply. In the Lutheran church I went to, and was taught nothing like that. The bible in its entirety is the Unerring and Perfect Word of God, Written by God. That includes everything in the bible--From Genesis to Revelation.

There is another thing I stated before. There is one way, one road, one church that will lead you to Heaven. The Lutheran church is not the Lord's church. Most of the rules are rewritten in the New Testament to prevent the confusion of man. God isn't going to say "This, this, and this doesn't work anymore, but everything else does." That causes confusion. He's going to make his plans for salvation plain as day.

Which brings back the "mass incoherence" argument that I will not give up. I will ask here again, for the third time, How can you be absolutely, completely without a doubt, sure that your denomination is the true word?

Everything my preacher has told me about the Word can't be proven wrong by the Word. That's why I know I'm right.

Aesop told stories that contain messages of good morality as well, but they were all fairy tales. What's the difference? They both get the point across--why drag souls and supreme beings into it?

Bible stories are true history. They teach true literacy. Aesop can't make up any type of fable that can have the influence true history does.

The writing there is not ambiguous. God plainly states Women are not to speak in church. And it does not say, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches when the preacher is teaching the word." It specifically implicates women should remain silent not only in churches, but in "all the congregations of the saints" as well. Not "everyone" should be silent. WOMEN.

It's common courtesy to not speak while anyone else is speaking to you. I never said it was a rule for no one to speak while a sermon is taking place.

It is not that hard to read the words that are on the page and listen to what they say. By adding your interpretation, you are putting words in God's mouth.

You don't want interpretation, go learn Hebrew and read the Hebrew writings for yourself. This should get rid of any translation errors and show you the right way. Maybe I'll do the same.

At that, If what is said in the bible is not to be taken literally, then that applies to EVERYTHING in the bible. That means that Heaven and Hell are metaphors, and everything is reduced to nothing but fairy tales. And maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think anyone has ever killed in the name of Aesop or the Brothers Grimm.

I never said that the Bible wasn't supposed to be taken literally. If I did, I didn't mean it in that way. I meant that the history was supposed to teach values.

Aesop or the Brother's Grimm aren't Gods.

God knows that people are fucking stupid, and needs to spell everything out for us. Otherwise, we do exactly what we have and make different interpretations, and that is the true source of the mass incoherence of the religion.

Truth, but the Bible speaks of the one road, the one way, the one Church that will truely lead to Heaven. This is the Church that has it all right, the Lord's Church.


Again, you are putting words in God's mouth. It does not say "Women shall not teach the word". It says "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." There should be no room for interpretation. God specifically used these words, and to say he means otherwise is actively denying his Perfect and Unerring Word.

This specific chapter of the Bible talks about manhood, womanhood, and the freedom to minister and teach the Word. Therefore, it speaks that women don't have the freedom to teach the Word.

You are avoiding the point. God gives Men a special way to show their dedication. But what about women?

Women can discuss the Bible, say that they love the Lord, and openly show it. Does it matter? Not really.

No. Again, you are putting words into God's mouth. If he meant "public display of affection," he would have said so.

Man isn't perfect, therefore our views on this verse are different. Also, remember this. Jesus was still alive, therefore the new covenant hasn't taken effect yet.

Bullshit. God told both of them not to partake of the forbidden fruit. It's bullshit to punish women more because Eve fucked up first.

Eve followed the serpent, AND manipulated Adam to eat the fruit. If Eve ate the fruit, and Adam ate it without any consent from Eve, it would be a different story.

Listen to the words again. Whether the Old Testament still applies or not, God specifically stated there that if a man rapes a virgin, he must pay her father fifty shekels of silver, and must become her husband. God is stating that it is OK to rape a woman, by not specifically stating that a man should be stoned for it or something similar.

God never said it was "OK," he said that is what must be done if it happens.

I don't care what century's standards you are living by, it is NEVER OK to commit rape. By not specifically condemning it, God is specifically demonstrating that he is completely comfortable with rape and that it is OK.

Read above.

Again, god specifically states that "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,...so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.". Again, adding interpretation is putting words in his mouth. He specifically says that women should submit to their husbands. And I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that included rape, because God has already demonstrated he is comfortable with the idea.

Read above.

But women are not allowed to find out for themselves?

Sure, it's right in there Bible. They have all the freedom in the world to see the Word. It doesn't have any clause in there that says "WOMEN CAN'T READ!!!"

Hypocrite. I don't even feel the need to argue here.

You should talk.

God still demonstrates a prevelant disfavor for women. Deny it all you wish. It is there, right in plain view, and "perverting the word of God" is precicely what you are doing.

God created Adam first, then Eve. God should be more proud of men, since men were the first creation he had made with his own two hands.

I can tell you exactly what I would have done if I were god. I would have chosen my words more carefully, for one thing. I know first hand how utterly stupid humans are, so I wouldn't fill my "Word" with such utter stupidity. I would fill my texts with enlightening speech, with timeless themes that won't become obsolete in several centuries.

I would literally SPELL things out for humans, giving them absolutely no room for interpretation.

So you would want your world to live in a fairy tale. So, you would be the kind of God that wants life to be perfect, and not have humans to look forward to anything after death? Remember, you'll still have people who are non-believers. God was active in the Old Testament, and He still had non-believers. Therefore, you have to introduce punishment and rewards.

I don't care what century you live in--Slavery is wrong, and being an all-loving being, I would not allow my creations to enslave each other, and I would emhasize such from the beginning. I wouldn't later say, "Oh yeah--Even though I was OK with it before, maybe you shouldnt' do that anymore..." I would deem "Thou Shalt Not Enslave" the Eleventh Commandment.

God may have had good intentions with slavery. Man's head got "too big" and therefore He had to put a stop to it.

And I can go on, but I'm sure it does no good. Obviously I am not God, and you obviously will never open your mind enough to consider that perhaps you are wrong.

I'm opening my mind by continuing this argument. I've read everything you've typed, and provided reasonable responses.

Yes, I realize that is hypocritical of me to say with the way that I continue to argue, and with the proposals I have brought up in this thread, but I guess that's inevitable. Oh well.

Yes, hypocrisy comes with arguments, without it, neither side would know anything about the subject.

[Nomad]

I really hate to do this especially in my own thread, but I cannot continue debating with you. I have concluded that you truly do believe in the insane God you claim to, and obviously I will not be swaying your opinion any time soon.

Might I ask, however, what denomination you are? I gather that you are not Catholic by what you say, and obviously are not Lutheran. What other interpretation of God's Word by man do you abide by?

[KuriKai]

Well I do not belong to a man made church or denomination.

[eX_Do0mY]

I do respect your opinions, so you can at least respect God and my beliefs. I never tried to flame you intentionally in any of my posts.

I belong to the Church of Christ. You don't get to God unless you go through Jesus Christ. That's why Jesus died for us.

I want to ask a question too. Have I at least raised any alarms on your side? If I did, I will at least have done one good deed in the world.

I don't seem to be budging your opinion either. Debates aren't really about coming to agreements. I call this one a draw.

Were you raised into any kind of religion? I want to find out how you came to think that God doesn't exist. I want to find out more about the psychology of an atheist. Who convinced them that God doesn't exist, some minor details about their past, etc.

Wow, seems that no one really missed discussion of religion. We're the only ones debating about it:)

[General Greivous]

Religion being non-existent would wipe away a lot of bigotry and hate thats spawned from beliefs and opinions resulting from the supposed word of God, which is really only equal to a number that number being the amount of people that believe in him due to God being intangible. The reason people cling to religions is because they want a purpose in life, religion can satisfy their curiosity so that they don't feel uncertain, and they can use his name to do any number of things whether it be carry out war, protests, or deny others of their rights.

Thats all I have to say about it. I won't be debating, because you can't debate with someone whom lets their life revolve around something. Were god ever proved to not exist, many many lives would come crumbling down. For that, I hope for worshippers of whatever god, that does not happen, though maybe more people will start being able to think for themselves, rather than thinking what it is they're told or supposed to think (or that they think whether they want to or not since religion uses fear to make people cooperate, ie. if you don't do/you do X you're going to Hell, wherever X is what your religion doesn't agree with).

[FATAL]

Religion being non-existent would wipe away a lot of bigotry and hate thats spawned from beliefs and opinions resulting from the supposed word of God, which is really only equal to a number that number being the amount of people that believe in him due to God being intangible. The reason people cling to religions is because they want a purpose in life, religion can satisfy their curiosity so that they don't feel uncertain, and they can use his name to do any number of things whether it be carry out war, protests, or deny others of their rights.

Thats all I have to say about it. I won't be debating, because you can't debate with someone whom lets their life revolve around something. Were god ever proved to not exist, many many lives would come crumbling down. For that, I hope for worshippers of whatever god, that does not happen, though maybe more people will start being able to think for themselves, rather than thinking what it is they're told or supposed to think (or that they think whether they want to or not since religion uses fear to make people cooperate, ie. if you don't do/you do X you're going to Hell, wherever X is what your religion doesn't agree with).
More and more I'm starting to feel that it's not religion that causes people not being able to think for themselves, but rather the people who aren't capable of independant thinking are into religions.



ex_doomy, once you said that everything in the bible is historically correct, you made the biggest mistake in this thread so far. There are so many parts in the bible that are incorrect that I'm not going to find and list them, but rather let another person do it.
www.truechristian.com may seem like a poor joke site at first, but once you look at it closer, mainly the "christian science" and some of the "kidz page" (some of them are a bit silly, Noah's ark is good) parts of it, you'll see that it's an incredibly witty compilation of problems in the bible.


As for your question on what makes people atheists, I'd rather turn it upside down, and ask what makes people religious? I have a reason for you. Religion is only taught by other people. If a child was to grow all by himself, he wouldn't know any gods. He would know only the things he has seen. Naturally because he doesn't understand certain things (lightning, clouds, etc.), he would create superstition to fix those holes. When I was just a little kid and generally open for any ideas the people around me told me, nobody told me there is a god, but not to make you enjoy even a small victory, nobody then taught me that there too ISN'T a god. If god is so great, why doesn't he at least give those lone children living by themselves like in my example a chance to believe in him?

God is like adults' santa claus, it's ok to believe in it because so many other people believe in it as well. Santa claus is for kids, and any adults believing in santa claus will probably be sent to a nuthouse. God, on the other hand, is totally ok to believe in. The point is, that kids learn about santa claus the same way they learn about god. How in any way, spreading the word of god is more divine and true than spreading the word of santa claus? Both things have just as much proof to back them up, but the other one is generally accepted, while the other isn't.

Bible is so full of bullshit that one has to be very gullible to believe in the rest. How can you believe a book that says that clouds are made from dust from god's feet and that earth is fixed in place in the universe? How do you know what parts are true and what false? No, god doesn't tell you that. However, this same bible controls the lives of millions of people who believe in it, and even millions of people who don't.

Religion won't disappear, because so many people are into it. But sure as hell not much good comes from it.

[g6672D]

"The believer is happy, the doubter is wise" - Hungarian Proverb. One of my all-time favourite quotes.

[Shaniac]

Meh, If you ask me, The Christian belief system is corrupt. They spend their whole lives teaching lust is wrong, but all that some people want is to get in heaven. Yet, one the other hand it teaches important lessons through analogies. If lots of people didn't believe that there was a higher being watching them, there would be way more crime because the people wouldn't have to be judged at the gates of heaven/hell or whatever the other religeons believe in.

[Nomad]

I do respect your opinions, so you can at least respect God and my beliefs. I never tried to flame you intentionally in any of my posts.

Never said you did. Moving on.

I belong to the Church of Christ. You don't get to God unless you go through Jesus Christ. That's why Jesus died for us.

How much information do you have on other denominations? Have you meticulously chosen what you believe is "the" religion, or is this just the denomination you were born into? With my knowlege of the Lutheran denomination, I can already tell off-hand that there is VERY little different that you believe that they do not teach.

And it's not like no other denomination teaches that through Christ you will be saved.

I want to ask a question too. Have I at least raised any alarms on your side? If I did, I will at least have done one good deed in the world.

Haha. Nope, not at all. Just in addition to thinking the God you worship is insane, I now believe that you are insane for worshipping him. :)

I don't seem to be budging your opinion either. Debates aren't really about coming to agreements. I call this one a draw.

I was just in a bad mood last night, haha. I'm not done yet. I am positive that I am not going to sway your opinion, however I enjoy the debate.

Were you raised into any kind of religion? I want to find out how you came to think that God doesn't exist. I want to find out more about the psychology of an atheist. Who convinced them that God doesn't exist, some minor details about their past, etc.

If it hasn't become painfully obvious, with my mention of the Lutheran church several times, it should have become, well, painfully obvious. ;)

I was born into a primarily Lutheran family (In fact, most of my family on my mother's side are Lutheran ministers--the males anyway, since women are not allowed to teach the Word because God is sexist. ;) ). I was baptised when I was very young; probably about six weeks old. I don't know for sure. As far as I know, we went often. And when my father joined the military, I ended up going to a Lutheran school where he was stationed.

Then my parents divorced when I was about six, and my mother and I moved, and I never really attended church after that. Of course, this was not my own choice, but I don't recall being that upset about it. The attitude I can remember I had towards Christianity back then wasn't much more than a liking for the fanciful stories.

Since then, I never really had any urge to go to church. To be perfectly honest, my life has been just fine. I've had my ups and down, yes. But I have not led some sort of horrible, blasphemous life. I guarantee I've led a life no different from yours, with the exception of you wasting every sunday (or probably more) at church. ;)

If you want to blame my lack of faith on someone, blame my parents if anything. However, I have always had the ability to speak up and say that I wanted to go to church.

Now that I am older, I have considered several different things. I have been trying to "find myself" spiritually since at least seventh grade. And with my somewhat unbiased mind, reading the bible has not proven to be anything inspirational. I am much more interested in teachings of Buddhism. Not neccessarily because I believe I can achieve Nirvana, but more for the moral reasons.

I think that if Jesus and Siddhartha Guatama (The Christ Man, and the Buddha/The Incarnated Self of God, verses The Enlightened One) were to meet, they would find themselves very awkward. Both of them teach the exact same thing. However, with Buddhism, there's no sacrafice (which includes much more than blood sacrafice, by the way), there's no mindless following something that potentially does not exist. There is just simply "Be good, Do good, and you are your own reward".

That does not imply that I want "instant gratification", like I'm sure most people believe about such ideals. I do many things that people do not appreciate, however my intentions are good. When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.

I am perfectly comfortable with the proposal that if God is real, than I am going to hell. However, I am still going to be a good person. I do not descriminate based on color of skin, gender, nationality, etc. I will help others in need.

If God is comfortable with sending a good person to hell, I am comfortable with going.

Does that answer your question at all?

More and more I'm starting to feel that it's not religion that causes people not being able to think for themselves, but rather the people who aren't capable of independant thinking are into religions.

I agree. It is for people who need something to believe in. A safety blanket, that allows them to be able to sleep at night.

ex_doomy, once you said that everything in the bible is historically correct, you made the biggest mistake in this thread so far. There are so many parts in the bible that are incorrect that I'm not going to find and list them, but rather let another person do it.

I don't know why that hadn't really clicked to me before. I guess it had, but I had other things to argue about before.

There are many stories in the more modern versions of the bible that were not in the originally there. Case and point, from what I understand, the story with the famous quotation from Jesus, "May who is without sin cast the first stone," in John 8, was not in the original Greek manuscripts. It was likely a footnote, and some scribe somewhere down the line decided to add it in.

Of course, I do not readilly have proof to this. It was brought to my attention by a scholar on some show on the History channel I was watching, but it does bring up an interesting point. How do we know what is really there and what isn't? The only way we would ever be able to find out is to learn the original language, and read the original manuscripts--which means everything after those manuscripts are tainted, and should be disregarded as "proof" of god.

[ultimus666]

I know this is the "Politics" forum, but I think religion deserves a healthy debate here at NewDoom. Besides, I asked Phoebus if it was OK, and he said it was, "As long as we don't get any complaints."

So if you have problems, shut the fuck up. ;)

Well, my views have changed slightly after having this debate over at Rusty's Abyss forums, but I myself claim to be Agnostic, with atheist tendencies.

I'm starting to believe more and more that religion should be abolished. The governments of the world can do nothing about stopping people's beliefs, but it should begin to look down on religion.

Why?

Because the majority of wars, the majority of people being killed in the world, the majority of the hate in the world, are all derivative of religion and superioristic ideologies.

There is hardly such a thing as a non-holy war. I think the current conflict over in Isreal is a good example, but the "holy" attributes are easy to see. The two gulf wars were started by radical muslim attacks on America. World War II was started by the nazis wanting to cleanse the earth of greedy Jews, and other "non pure" peoples, and Japan's disdain for the Chinese.

There is so much hate in the world, which I believe the majority of which is due to different beliefs, which are all false anyway. An outside, and completely unbiased observer would be disgusted with how we act toward each other, simply because of different beliefs that can not be proven.

Because there is no god. There is no JHVH. There is no Allah. There is no Brahma, nor any of the Hindu sub-dieties. Siddhartha Guatama never really achieved enlightenment, thus is not the Buddha, because all of those teachings are bullshit. "Spirits" do not live in objects. And every other diety is imaginary, designed to give us "hope" that our "souls" will find rest in the "afterlife."

There are so many different religions. And so many incoherent derivations of each religion. Yet every person who believes each differen sect and division of their religions, believe that they are right, and everyone else are wrong. How can you believe in an ideology that can't even get itself right?

By simply taking into account that god is imaginary, all of the mysteries, all of the unexplained inconsistencies in religion, all of the "what if"s dissappear, and the world suddenly makes sense.

For example, the ultimate question, "Why does bad things happen to good people?" Why does god allow his believers to suffer? The biggest argument is that of giving people "free will," but that brings up one of the biggest paradoxes possible.

Many people might find themselves in a position where they either lose their keys, or lock them in a car. They might pray to God to help them out in some way, and "magically", their spouse might come by to visit on lunch, and let them into the house. Then they will claim, Oh, My Prayers Have Been Answered! Thank You, God!

But doesn't that negate free will? Doesn't God influencing the husband to stop by the house during lunch indicate that he was manipulated to do so, thus losing his free will?

Now take the school shooting at Red Lake high school in Minnesota for example. English teacher Neva Rogers was busy teaching her class, when gunshots and screams erupted from elswhere in the building. She acted quickly, locking the door, and turning the lights off. She then proceeded to tell everyone to pray, as she did so herself.

Moments later, the gunman walks by, noticing that the door was locked. He shoots out the glass, and opens the door, and walks up to Mrs. Rogers, puts a 12ga shotgun to her head and pulls the trigger.

What happens next might have been a "sign" that God was going to spare her life, for as he pulled the trigger, there was nothing but a click. Seems like a miracle, right?

Only, the gunman proceeds to pull out another gun, and shoots the woman three times in the head, and then once more in the face for good measure. She was dead instantly.

He then aims the gun at the students in the corner, and asks them "Do you believe in god?"

All but one answered yes, and the gunman proceeded to kill all of them but that one.

How can God allow his devout believers to be murdered so cold-bloodedly, yet spare the person that openly denied belief? There are a million things that God could have done.

But the fact is, there is no God. I refuse to believe in a being that will insist on loving every one of his creations, but completely ignore the pain and suffering many go through. God will ignore the pleas of a woman being raped, fervantly praying for help. He ignores the millions of praying believers in Africa, starving to death.

But he'll help some selfish bitch get her keys.

Miracles are an illusion. It's high time that people start realizing the delusions they suffer from, and start living in the Real world. We are all in the same boat, and we need to learn to work together. Religion is a hinderance on finding peace in the world, despite the supposed fruits of the "afterlife" that each religion promises. We have only one life to live, and after that there's nothing. Zip.

We're ruining the future when our children and children's children could be living in a paradise, instead they will have to endure the same mindless bickering that we do today. Stop giving into your selfish beliefs that being a good person will get you a golden ticket to Heaven, when you could be helping to build this world into a paradise for everyone.
The question why do bad things happen to good people can easily be answered. The more good people that die, the more that will go to heaven. God wants us to die, but he wants us to live our lives too.In the beggining of time everyone was supposed to live in the garden of eden, which was like heaven but with one rule. You could not eat the fruit from the forbiden tree. Eve ate the fruit, which shows that humans have free will.Since adam and eve were kicked out of eden, people were allowed to die. Dieing is a good thing, for a good person. In that shooting, the gunman actualy helped God, because he sent more believers to heaven. God wants us to live in the paradise that adam and eve had.And other people ask why we haven't seen any of God's wraths. We have. I believe the story of Noah"s ark, because at the bottom of the red sea is an entire city, it would've taken a lot of rain to do that. That gigantic tsunami in asia is another sign.All of the good people that died there went to heaven, and all of the bad got there punishment. Hurricane Katrina killed lots of people, again all of the good went to heaven, and the bad to hell.God wants the world to end, because he wants the good people to get to him.

[Nomad]

The question why do bad things happen to good people can easily be answered. The more good people that die, the more that will go to heaven. God wants us to die, but he wants us to live our lives too.In the beggining of time everyone was supposed to live in the garden of eden, which was like heaven but with one rule. You could not eat the fruit from the forbiden tree. Eve ate the fruit, which shows that humans have free will.Since adam and eve were kicked out of eden, people were allowed to die. Dieing is a good thing, for a good person. In that shooting, the gunman actualy helped God, because he sent more believers to heaven. God wants us to live in the paradise that adam and eve had.And other people ask why we haven't seen any of God's wraths. We have. I believe the story of Noah"s ark, because at the bottom of the red sea is an entire city, it would've taken a lot of rain to do that. That gigantic tsunami in asia is another sign.All of the good people that died there went to heaven, and all of the bad got there punishment. Hurricane Katrina killed lots of people, again all of the good went to heaven, and the bad to hell.God wants the world to end, because he wants the good people to get to him.

My first question, is What Religion Do You Subscribe To?

Your argument is flawed in many ways.

Firstly, consider the story of Noah's Ark. I will not deny that God has the power to create water from nothing and make it rain for a long time. However, look at what happened in the story.

God was angry at what his creations have become (which, of course, being omnipotent, he knew would happen anyway), so he decided to kill everyone but Noah and his family.

He told Noah to build a boat, that was 300 Cubits long, 50 Cubits wide, and 30 Cubits tall. A cubit is roughly 1.5 feet, thus Noah's ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had about 101,205 square feet of room.

There have been around 50,000,000,000 known species of animals, and two of which means there were roughly 100,000,000,000 animals contained on the boat. That means about 988,094 animals per square foot! That seems logical to me!

Now, God destroys EVERYTHING while Noah, his family, and all these animals float around for forty days and forty nights that it rained, and then the six month period that it took for the water to recede. (How did Noah's family, and the 100,000,000,000 animals eat during that journey, I wonder?)

Now, after everything is OK again, Noah and his family single handedly rebuild the human race. So all of us are decended from Noah's family?

There is something highly problematic with this story.

Now also, Over 200,000 people died in the tsunami that you mentioned. Only 2.1% of the people in India are Christian, which I think we can safely assume the same ratio can be said for that particular region of India that the tsunami affected.

If God created that tsunami to send 2.1% of 200,000 people to heaven, then he knowingly and actively sent 196,000 people straight to hell. How many of those people were children, that may not have even had the chance to hear the Word of God yet? How can an All-Loving God do that?

[eX_Do0mY]

How much information do you have on other denominations? Have you meticulously chosen what you believe is "the" religion, or is this just the denomination you were born into? With my knowlege of the Lutheran denomination, I can already tell off-hand that there is VERY little different that you believe that they do not teach.

I have attended many other denominations. Church of God or a Pentecostal Church are nearly indistinguishable to Church of Christ, other than what you should wear (neither of these denominations allow jewelry to be worn by either sex, or allow women to wear pants and such, there ARE some verses that hold candle to the jewelry thing, but the New Testament says for women to just dress modestly). Baptists are very wrong, they think baptism isn't necessary to be saved (here is probably your most popular Church, for that very reason), and that they don't have to take communion every Sunday (breaking of the bread and sharing the wine in memory of the Lord's sacrifice). I've never been to a Methodist Church, although I have spoke to some people that attend Methodist Churches and they aren't any closer than Baptists.

And it's not like no other denomination teaches that through Christ you will be saved.

You know, it's the little things that really throw off the whole picture. Most of the time you'll get a minister that may change what the Bible really says and make it fit into what he agrees with, and none of the people want to prove him wrong because he's a minister. Here's the source of your denominations.

Haha. Nope, not at all. Just in addition to thinking the God you worship is insane, I now believe that you are insane for worshipping him. :)

You have the right to your own opinion :) Come on, respect a little.

I was just in a bad mood last night, haha. I'm not done yet. I am positive that I am not going to sway your opinion, however I enjoy the debate.

Yeah, this is one of the first few educated arguements that I have had in a long time.

If it hasn't become painfully obvious, with my mention of the Lutheran church several times, it should have become, well, painfully obvious. ;)

Yeah, well, but you never mentioned that you attended any other Churches, or if you stuck with Lutheran Church for a long period of time.

I was born into a primarily Lutheran family (In fact, most of my family on my mother's side are Lutheran ministers--the males anyway, since women are not allowed to teach the Word because God is sexist. ;) ). I was baptised when I was very young; probably about six weeks old. I don't know for sure. As far as I know, we went often. And when my father joined the military, I ended up going to a Lutheran school where he was stationed.

Hmm. Children don't have to be baptised at such an early age, they aren't really baptised because they can't speak whether that they believe in the Lord and always will.

Was your father violent, or was he ever seriously injured in the service?

Then my parents divorced when I was about six, and my mother and I moved, and I never really attended church after that. Of course, this was not my own choice, but I don't recall being that upset about it. The attitude I can remember I had towards Christianity back then wasn't much more than a liking for the fanciful stories.

My parents divorced when I was 11, and my father still isn't worth crap. Haven't spoken to him in months. That dumb woman he calls a wife doesn't help any. Amazing how much someone can change. Most of your children like the history written in the Bible.

Since then, I never really had any urge to go to church. To be perfectly honest, my life has been just fine. I've had my ups and down, yes. But I have not led some sort of horrible, blasphemous life. I guarantee I've led a life no different from yours, with the exception of you wasting every sunday (or probably more) at church. ;)

Aww, come on. It's not a waste. It's the thought that it'll pay off. Most of your atheists aren't blasphemous, they just believe in a non-perfect human scientist.

If you want to blame my lack of faith on someone, blame my parents if anything. However, I have always had the ability to speak up and say that I wanted to go to church.

Well, religion is better made a decision later in life. Most of your children born and raised around pure religion turn out to go hog wild when they get out of the confinement of the parents. When you make religion a decision later, you are an adult and you can make an educated decision, and hopefully you'll make the right decision.

Now that I am older, I have considered several different things. I have been trying to "find myself" spiritually since at least seventh grade. And with my somewhat unbiased mind, reading the bible has not proven to be anything inspirational. I am much more interested in teachings of Buddhism. Not neccessarily because I believe I can achieve Nirvana, but more for the moral reasons.

Attend Church for a while, and you'll see that the Christian religion has great morals. Christianity, you can say, has brought about many great things, like the U.S.A. (pilgrims looking for freedom of religion) and most of your constitutional laws can be said that they are based off of the Christian religion. And you don't seem to have a problem with the Constitution.

I think that if Jesus and Siddhartha Guatama (The Christ Man, and the Buddha/The Incarnated Self of God, verses The Enlightened One) were to meet, they would find themselves very awkward. Both of them teach the exact same thing. However, with Buddhism, there's no sacrafice (which includes much more than blood sacrafice, by the way), there's no mindless following something that potentially does not exist. There is just simply "Be good, Do good, and you are your own reward". That does not imply that I want "instant gratification", like I'm sure most people believe about such ideals. I do many things that people do not appreciate, however my intentions are good. When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.

Keep on going then. Make this world more enjoyable for the rest of us. Maybe you'll see the light later.

I am perfectly comfortable with the proposal that if God is real, than I am going to hell. However, I am still going to be a good person. I do not descriminate based on color of skin, gender, nationality, etc. I will help others in need.

I don't discriminate either, and I be the best person that I can. I like to believe in God. That's the difference in us.

If God is comfortable with sending a good person to hell, I am comfortable with going.

Ok. I just hope He finds a way to spare you. If you feel comfortable with staring Jesus straight in the eye, and say that's ok, then I say you got major balls.

Does that answer your question at all?

I agree. It is for people who need something to believe in. A safety blanket, that allows them to be able to sleep at night.

Ouch, that hurts. It's not that we can't think independantly, it's just that we would like to follow the rules and plans of The Higher Authority.

I don't know why that hadn't really clicked to me before. I guess it had, but I had other things to argue about before.

There are many stories in the more modern versions of the bible that were not in the originally there. Case and point, from what I understand, the story with the famous quotation from Jesus, "May who is without sin cast the first stone," in John 8, was not in the original Greek manuscripts. It was likely a footnote, and some scribe somewhere down the line decided to add it in.

Right. Which brings me to the point that you should pick the right version of the Bible, the King James Version. A direct translation of the Hebrew writings.

Of course, I do not readilly have proof to this. It was brought to my attention by a scholar on some show on the History channel I was watching, but it does bring up an interesting point. How do we know what is really there and what isn't? The only way we would ever be able to find out is to learn the original language, and read the original manuscripts--which means everything after those manuscripts are tainted, and should be disregarded as "proof" of god.

lol, back in one of my posts I said that we should learn Hebrew and go read the text ourselves :)

Firstly, consider the story of Noah's Ark. I will not deny that God has the power to create water from nothing and make it rain for a long time. However, look at what happened in the story.

God was angry at what his creations have become (which, of course, being omnipotent, he knew would happen anyway), so he decided to kill everyone but Noah and his family.

He told Noah to build a boat, that was 300 Cubits long, 50 Cubits wide, and 30 Cubits tall. A cubit is roughly 1.5 feet, thus Noah's ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had about 101,205 square feet of room.

There have been around 50,000,000,000 known species of animals, and two of which means there were roughly 100,000,000,000 animals contained on the boat. That means about 988,094 animals per square foot! That seems logical to me!

If God can make it rain for 40 days, 40 nights, allow a man to live for 600 years (Noah), can create the world and everything in it in the blink of an eye, and know what will happen at the exact second it happens, I'm sure that he can stuff that many animals in that small of a space. Plus, many of your animals today can be hybrid from other animals (elk, mules, etc.), and about 90% of that 50 billion is in the insect/arachnid/whatever kingdom.

Now, God destroys EVERYTHING while Noah, his family, and all these animals float around for forty days and forty nights that it rained, and then the six month period that it took for the water to recede. (How did Noah's family, and the 100,000,000,000 animals eat during that journey, I wonder?)

It took that long for it to recede. I'm sure they could find vegetation growing on the top of the mountains, some of the animals could have had offspring in that 7 month entire time period, and God could have given them the strength to go that long without food. Remember, God doesn't leave his followers behind.

Now, after everything is OK again, Noah and his family single handedly rebuild the human race. So all of us are decended from Noah's family?

Genesis 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.

Not entirely from Noah's family. This verse means that there were indeed other people God had seen that were as righteous as Noah.

Now also, Over 200,000 people died in the tsunami that you mentioned. Only 2.1% of the people in India are Christian, which I think we can safely assume the same ratio can be said for that particular region of India that the tsunami affected.

If God created that tsunami to send 2.1% of 200,000 people to heaven, then he knowingly and actively sent 196,000 people straight to hell. How many of those people were children, that may not have even had the chance to hear the Word of God yet? How can an All-Loving God do that?

OK. In the Bible it explains that children don't have to hear the Word. They haven't reached the age of accountability yet. How can you expect a child to believe in God? They don't have the maturity. God does things for a reason. A large part of the people killed may have been blasphemers, terrorists, people going against Israel, etc. God is your Father. He does things in a matter of "I love you, but this is for your own good" matter.

[FATAL]

Maybe you'll see the light later.
It's disgusting how religious people consider themselves better people.

Have you seen the light? Have you heard voices in your head, illusions in front of you, or is it enough that someone over 2000 years ago after wandering in the desert for days has told that he has seen something?

If it's the latter, then refer to my last post, which you totally disregarded, by the way.

[Nomad]

I have attended many other denominations. Church of God or a Pentecostal Church are nearly indistinguishable to Church of Christ, other than what you should wear (neither of these denominations allow jewelry to be worn by either sex, or allow women to wear pants and such, there ARE some verses that hold candle to the jewelry thing, but the New Testament says for women to just dress modestly). Baptists are very wrong, they think baptism isn't necessary to be saved (here is probably your most popular Church, for that very reason), and that they don't have to take communion every Sunday (breaking of the bread and sharing the wine in memory of the Lord's sacrifice). I've never been to a Methodist Church, although I have spoke to some people that attend Methodist Churches and they aren't any closer than Baptists.You know, it's the little things that really throw off the whole picture. Most of the time you'll get a minister that may change what the Bible really says and make it fit into what he agrees with, and none of the people want to prove him wrong because he's a minister. Here's the source of your denominations.

Then why did God not spell everything out so there wasn't any way for his word to be misinterpreted?

Hmm. Children don't have to be baptised at such an early age, they aren't really baptised because they can't speak whether that they believe in the Lord and always will.

What if God chooses to take that child at an early age? Before it has the chance to speak, it has NO way of being "saved" since it cannot acknowlege Jesus Christ as its Lord and Saviour. So I do agree with what you're saying: Baptising it or not doesn't matter--babies all go to hell anyway.



Was your father violent, or was he ever seriously injured in the service?

My parents divorced when I was 11, and my father still isn't worth crap. Haven't spoken to him in months. That dumb woman he calls a wife doesn't help any. Amazing how much someone can change. Most of your children like the history written in the Bible.

Nope. I love my father very much, and he has always supported me with whatever I do. My mother, on the other hand, is the one that has always been the horrible bitch. And she is the one that I got stuck with.

After she and my father divorced, she didn't go to church much, and I guess dabbled a little in wicca for a small while from what I understand. I think she went back to her religion being "whatever" soon after that, though. After her second marriage failed (which I might add, the man she chose to re-marry was a complete asshole), I don't know what happened, but she flung herself back at the Lutheran church and has been a zealot ever since.

The man she is dating now is a positively vile being, and I want nothing to do with him, or her while she's dating him. I haven't talked to her since my birthday last year, when he and I got in a fight over him calling my grandmother (my mother's mother) "Elephant Ass," however it is not OK to disrespect my own mother by calling her a hypocrite.

The "Honor thy mother and thy father" commandment got brought up in that conversation more than once, which has led me to believe it is nothing but utter garbage. Respect for parents should be based on the parents' performance--not because a "supreme being" tells you to.

From what you tell me about your own story, you do not exactly seem to follow that commandment either. ;)



Aww, come on. It's not a waste. It's the thought that it'll pay off. Most of your atheists aren't blasphemous, they just believe in a non-perfect human scientist.

Ha. I was really just teasing about it being a waste. I, however, have better things to do with my Sunday mornings. Like, Sleep, for example. XD

It is unfair to say, however, that all athiests follow the words of Charles Darwin. I do rely on the scientific method to analyse the world, and I obviously do not simply believe everything I am told. The theory of evolution as a whole is somewhat flawed, but I am sure that in time it will move from the "theory" stage to the "Law" stage some day, just as the "Law" of Gravity and all of the laws of nature have. Just because a scientific theory is not proven NOW, does not mean that it can NOT be proven. ;)

Well, religion is better made a decision later in life. Most of your children born and raised around pure religion turn out to go hog wild when they get out of the confinement of the parents. When you make religion a decision later, you are an adult and you can make an educated decision, and hopefully you'll make the right decision.

While I do agree, you must consider all of the "unsaved" children that die, that have not been given the chance to embrace the Word of the Lord. According to your religion, they go straight to hell, out of simple ignorance. That is not the work of an All-Loving God.

Attend Church for a while, and you'll see that the Christian religion has great morals. Christianity, you can say, has brought about many great things, like the U.S.A. (pilgrims looking for freedom of religion) and most of your constitutional laws can be said that they are based off of the Christian religion. And you don't seem to have a problem with the Constitution.

Ah ha. You have some things wrong here.

Since the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism, and the Ten Commandments are contained in the Old Testament, the U.S. Constitution is truly based off of the Judaic religion.

That said, I have never said that I do not have a problem with the U.S. Constitution, or the U.S. Government. Many of the same problems that I have with religion, can be found in the foundation of our government, and it makes me sick. Misogyny being one of them. The country was originally founded on the principle that only wealthy, white men could have any say in the government. However, the poor, women, slaves, and minority groups did not have any power or say in the government.

However, things have changed quite a bit in the last 200 years since the inception of this country, but it has not gotten much better. I hardly believe that Martin Luther King Jr. marched for much, based on everyday observations of today. I grew up for most of my childhood in Georgia, and I got accosted for my "ancestors owning blacks" so much, for no reason. I never did anything offensive towards them personally, so why should I be chastised?

Similar situations arise everywhere, and although it is the government's job to secure my right to the pursuit of happiness, I have not been allowed to.

Keep on going then. Make this world more enjoyable for the rest of us. Maybe you'll see the light later.

Continue doing good deeds to get yourself in heaven. I will continue doing good deeds to make this world better for all of us, expecting nothing.

Now define the word "selfishness".

I don't discriminate either, and I be the best person that I can. I like to believe in God. That's the difference in us.

By agreeing with God that men are somehow better than women, you are plainly demonstrating sexism right there, which is a form of discrimination. ;)

Ok. I just hope He finds a way to spare you. If you feel comfortable with staring Jesus straight in the eye, and say that's ok, then I say you got major balls.

You and I both now that my rejection of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour is an automatic "Go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" card. Perhaps I do have "major balls." Perhaps I am merely following my heart, no different than you are.

Ouch, that hurts. It's not that we can't think independantly, it's just that we would like to follow the rules and plans of The Higher Authority.

But again, and I know you already are sure that you follow the True Word of God, there is NO possible way that you can, unless you learn Hebrew and Greek and follow the original scriptures exactly as God had written them.



Right. Which brings me to the point that you should pick the right version of the Bible, the King James Version. A direct translation of the Hebrew writings.

I guess I mispoke when I said "more modern" versions of the bible. I am still referring to versions that were transcribed by speakers of the same language that the scriptures were written in. English is a fairly new language, and I guarantee that the Hebrew and Greek versions have been floating around, being misinterpreted LONG before the King James version was translated.

The New Testament was not written in Hebrew, by the way. The majority of it was written in Koine Greek, although there is contest over whether Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew.. Which leads me to believe that you may not know your religion as well as you say you do. ;)

lol, back in one of my posts I said that we should learn Hebrew and go read the text ourselves :)

That will help you read the Old Testament, however as I said above, it won't help with reading the New Testament. ;)

[eX_Do0mY]

Fine. Here it comes.

More and more I'm starting to feel that it's not religion that causes people not being able to think for themselves, but rather the people who aren't capable of independant thinking are into religions.

Already answered.

ex_doomy, once you said that everything in the bible is historically correct, you made the biggest mistake in this thread so far. There are so many parts in the bible that are incorrect that I'm not going to find and list them, but rather let another person do it.
www.truechristian.com may seem like a poor joke site at first, but once you look at it closer, mainly the "christian science" and some of the "kidz page" (some of them are a bit silly, Noah's ark is good) parts of it, you'll see that it's an incredibly witty compilation of problems in the bible.

Already discussed with Nomad.

As for your question on what makes people atheists, I'd rather turn it upside down, and ask what makes people religious? I have a reason for you. Religion is only taught by other people. If a child was to grow all by himself, he wouldn't know any gods. He would know only the things he has seen. Naturally because he doesn't understand certain things (lightning, clouds, etc.), he would create superstition to fix those holes. When I was just a little kid and generally open for any ideas the people around me told me, nobody told me there is a god, but not to make you enjoy even a small victory, nobody then taught me that there too ISN'T a god. If god is so great, why doesn't he at least give those lone children living by themselves like in my example a chance to believe in him?

I'm sure there are Churches in every city, there is Christian programming on most television services, I'm sure the parents have Christian friends. It's the parent's fault for not teaching their children the right path. You're probably old enough to make decisions for yourself now, you could become a Christian any time you wanted.

God is like adults' santa claus, it's ok to believe in it because so many other people believe in it as well. Santa claus is for kids, and any adults believing in santa claus will probably be sent to a nuthouse. God, on the other hand, is totally ok to believe in. The point is, that kids learn about santa claus the same way they learn about god. How in any way, spreading the word of god is more divine and true than spreading the word of santa claus? Both things have just as much proof to back them up, but the other one is generally accepted, while the other isn't.

Santa Claus existed as St. Nicholas. The myth image he has today is pure crap. So, there. Santa Claus exists, why not God? You have the whole Bible to show God's work, and the land you stand on is God's work. No proof? Yeah right.

Bible is so full of bullshit that one has to be very gullible to believe in the rest. How can you believe a book that says that clouds are made from dust from god's feet and that earth is fixed in place in the universe? How do you know what parts are true and what false? No, god doesn't tell you that. However, this same bible controls the lives of millions of people who believe in it, and even millions of people who don't.

Show me the verses that say clouds are dust from God's feet and that the Earth doesn't move.

[/quote]Religion won't disappear, because so many people are into it. But sure as hell not much good comes from it.[/QUOTE]

OK. We have great Christian programs like Feed the Children, feeding the starving children in Africa and places like that. You all talk about God doesn't think about the people in Africa, yet we have Christian programs like Feed the Children. You're so stuck on your opinion that you don't think to look to think outside the box.

Then why did God not spell everything out so there wasn't any way for his word to be misinterpreted?

Few people know Hebrew/Greek.

What if God chooses to take that child at an early age? Before it has the chance to speak, it has NO way of being "saved" since it cannot acknowlege Jesus Christ as its Lord and Saviour. So I do agree with what you're saying: Baptising it or not doesn't matter--babies all go to hell anyway.

Discussed above.

Nope. I love my father very much, and he has always supported me with whatever I do. My mother, on the other hand, is the one that has always been the horrible bitch. And she is the one that I got stuck with.

Ouch. Sorry about that.

After she and my father divorced, she didn't go to church much, and I guess dabbled a little in wicca for a small while from what I understand. I think she went back to her religion being "whatever" soon after that, though. After her second marriage failed (which I might add, the man she chose to re-marry was a complete asshole), I don't know what happened, but she flung herself back at the Lutheran church and has been a zealot ever since.

Ok.

The man she is dating now is a positively vile being, and I want nothing to do with him, or her while she's dating him. I haven't talked to her since my birthday last year, when he and I got in a fight over him calling my grandmother (my mother's mother) "Elephant Ass," however it is not OK to disrespect my own mother by calling her a hypocrite.

Ok.

The "Honor thy mother and thy father" commandment got brought up in that conversation more than once, which has led me to believe it is nothing but utter garbage. Respect for parents should be based on the parents' performance--not because a "supreme being" tells you to.

Honor is respect, you don't have to like someone to necessarily respect them.

From what you tell me about your own story, you do not exactly seem to follow that commandment either. ;)

It's not my father's fault, it's his stupid wife's fault. She's not my mother, so I don't have to honor her XD

Ha. I was really just teasing about it being a waste. I, however, have better things to do with my Sunday mornings. Like, Sleep, for example. XD

I try to go Sundays, I skip Wednesday nights though.

It is unfair to say, however, that all athiests follow the words of Charles Darwin. I do rely on the scientific method to analyse the world, and I obviously do not simply believe everything I am told. The theory of evolution as a whole is somewhat flawed, but I am sure that in time it will move from the "theory" stage to the "Law" stage some day, just as the "Law" of Gravity and all of the laws of nature have. Just because a scientific theory is not proven NOW, does not mean that it can NOT be proven. ;)

When it is Law, I'll change my beliefs.

While I do agree, you must consider all of the "unsaved" children that die, that have not been given the chance to embrace the Word of the Lord. According to your religion, they go straight to hell, out of simple ignorance. That is not the work of an All-Loving God.

Discussed above.

Since the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism, and the Ten Commandments are contained in the Old Testament, the U.S. Constitution is truly based off of the Judaic religion.

In a way, yes, but many of your Old Testament values are still in the New Testament.

That said, I have never said that I do not have a problem with the U.S. Constitution, or the U.S. Government. Many of the same problems that I have with religion, can be found in the foundation of our government, and it makes me sick. Misogyny being one of them. The country was originally founded on the principle that only wealthy, white men could have any say in the government. However, the poor, women, slaves, and minority groups did not have any power or say in the government.

The U.S. Government doesn't really favor one Religion, due to the first amendment. Freedom of Religion.

However, things have changed quite a bit in the last 200 years since the inception of this country, but it has not gotten much better. I hardly believe that Martin Luther King Jr. marched for much, based on everyday observations of today. I grew up for most of my childhood in Georgia, and I got accosted for my "ancestors owning blacks" so much, for no reason. I never did anything offensive towards them personally, so why should I be chastised?

Hasn't gotten much better? Abolishment of slavery, equality for women and African Americans, nullification of segregation, etc? That's major improvement in my opinion.

Similar situations arise everywhere, and although it is the government's job to secure my right to the pursuit of happiness, I have not been allowed to.

No one's stopping you from doing what you want to do. At least, I don't think so. Explain. Are you referring to your scene's bad image that the idiots of the world have placed on it? I agree those people need to either but out, or listen to you guys.

Continue doing good deeds to get yourself in heaven. I will continue doing good deeds to make this world better for all of us, expecting nothing.

I don't expect God to praise me for my deeds on Earth. I can never do enough.

Now define the word "selfishness".

self·ish (sĕl'fĭsh)
adj.
Concerned chiefly or only with oneself

By agreeing with God that men are somehow better than women, you are plainly demonstrating sexism right there, which is a form of discrimination. ;)

I said men and women are allowed to be equal. Happy?

You and I both now that my rejection of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour is an automatic "Go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200" card. Perhaps I do have "major balls." Perhaps I am merely following my heart, no different than you are.

Your choice. No one's stopping you for doing what you want to achieve.

But again, and I know you already are sure that you follow the True Word of God, there is NO possible way that you can, unless you learn Hebrew and Greek and follow the original scriptures exactly as God had written them.

OK, gimme some money to take Hebrew and Greek classes and a copy of the text XD

I guess I mispoke when I said "more modern" versions of the bible. I am still referring to versions that were transcribed by speakers of the same language that the scriptures were written in. English is a fairly new language, and I guarantee that the Hebrew and Greek versions have been floating around, being misinterpreted LONG before the King James version was translated.

God split all of the languages up on the tower of Babel. English could have existed at that time.

The New Testament was not written in Hebrew, by the way. The majority of it was written in Koine Greek, although there is contest over whether Matthew was written in Aramaic or Hebrew.. Which leads me to believe that you may not know your religion as well as you say you do. ;)

lol, doesn't matter what language, I just gotta learn it ;)

That will help you read the Old Testament, however as I said above, it won't help with reading the New Testament. ;)

Ok.

[ultimus666]

My first question, is What Religion Do You Subscribe To?

Your argument is flawed in many ways.

Firstly, consider the story of Noah's Ark. I will not deny that God has the power to create water from nothing and make it rain for a long time. However, look at what happened in the story.

God was angry at what his creations have become (which, of course, being omnipotent, he knew would happen anyway), so he decided to kill everyone but Noah and his family.

He told Noah to build a boat, that was 300 Cubits long, 50 Cubits wide, and 30 Cubits tall. A cubit is roughly 1.5 feet, thus Noah's ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had about 101,205 square feet of room.

There have been around 50,000,000,000 known species of animals, and two of which means there were roughly 100,000,000,000 animals contained on the boat. That means about 988,094 animals per square foot! That seems logical to me!

Now, God destroys EVERYTHING while Noah, his family, and all these animals float around for forty days and forty nights that it rained, and then the six month period that it took for the water to recede. (How did Noah's family, and the 100,000,000,000 animals eat during that journey, I wonder?)

Now, after everything is OK again, Noah and his family single handedly rebuild the human race. So all of us are decended from Noah's family?

There is something highly problematic with this story.

Now also, Over 200,000 people died in the tsunami that you mentioned. Only 2.1% of the people in India are Christian, which I think we can safely assume the same ratio can be said for that particular region of India that the tsunami affected.

If God created that tsunami to send 2.1% of 200,000 people to heaven, then he knowingly and actively sent 196,000 people straight to hell. How many of those people were children, that may not have even had the chance to hear the Word of God yet? How can an All-Loving God do that?
I am a catholic, and they did'nt know as many animals existed back in the time of Noah, and of coarse he would bring food for the animals. And everyone did'nt die in the flood. There is more than one continent, and if he killed everyone there would be hardly any good people to get to heaven. As for the tsunami, it doesn't matter what religion they followed, all of the good people who died went to heaven. God would send all good people to heaven, despite their religion. Yes, it does say in the ten commandments that everyone has to only worship the almighty lord, but God will forgive that because he gave humans free will.

[PumpkinSmasher]

May god have pity on your souls for your ignorance of him.

[Nomad]

I am a catholic, and they did'nt know as many animals existed back in the time of Noah

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold it right there. Let me remind you who wrote the bible: God. I'm quite sure God knew how many different animals there were. With that statement right there, you acknowlege that the bible was written by primitave men, and your argument is hereby invalid.

And everyone did'nt die in the flood. There is more than one continent, and if he killed everyone there would be hardly any good people to get to heaven.

I do not recall any mention of the flood being "selective" to a single continent. God specifically states,

I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.

If you have not read the bible, please do so before you continue to debate. You obviously have no knowlege of your religion.

As for the tsunami, it doesn't matter what religion they followed, all of the good people who died went to heaven. God would send all good people to heaven, despite their religion. Yes, it does say in the ten commandments that everyone has to only worship the almighty lord, but God will forgive that because he gave humans free will.

No. Jesus Christ says himself,
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

Which means all of those people, regardless of how good they are, went straight to hell.

Again, If you have not read the bible, please do so before you continue to debate. You obviously have no knowlege of your religion.

[eX_Do0mY]

God would send all good people to heaven, despite their religion. Yes, it does say in the ten commandments that everyone has to only worship the almighty lord, but God will forgive that because he gave humans free will.

Oh no, I gotta argue with a Catholic now.

Acts 2:47 And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Only the Lord's Church and children get into heaven. Another verse speaks that children are angels of the Lord. And the Lord makes no mistakes. Only the saved and children get into heaven.

By the way that's Mark 16:16 Nomad lol

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

[Looney]

John: 3:16 ;)

[Nomad]

Nevermind, I misread your wording. My bad

By the way that's Mark 16:16 Nomad lol

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

Haha, my bad. Hey, they both start with M. XP

But same deal there. Either you believe and are baptised, or you go to hell. There's no middle ground stated there.

John: 3:16 ;)

Nice to see you've still decided to join us. That is yet another passage that explicitly states, "Believe in Christ, or you go to hell".

Again, there is no middle ground. You either do, or you don't.

[Aliotroph?]

Santa Claus existed as St. Nicholas. The myth image he has today is pure crap. So, there. Santa Claus exists, why not God? You have the whole Bible to show God's work, and the land you stand on is God's work. No proof? Yeah right.

It isn't proof. Not at all. All that proves is there is Earth and there is a book that tells a story of how it was made. Lots of other cultures have their own book or story that says how it was made. How do you know it wasn't them or even that it wasn't just the guys from Magrathea building the super computer designed by Deep Thought to run a program for 10 million years to figure out the ultimate question? Learning and discovery happen when people stop accepting crap like that as proof.

God split all of the languages up on the tower of Babel. English could have existed at that time.

No, no, and no again. What sort of ignorance of history would it take to cause such an idea??? The rise and developement of English is pretty well documented and is certainly more recent than the Tower of Babel.

And Nomad's argument that evolution will itself evolve into a law like Newton's three laws doesn't work either. The only reason they were called "laws" is because they appeared as predictable mathematical rules, sort of like the Pythagoran Theorem. Newton didn't have the whole picture though, an Einstein came up with a better one. He wanted a better idea still, and he didn't get there. Theories virtually never become actual theorems because there's no way to prove that the picture isn't a bit deeper or has no more angles to it.

He is right though, that lots of atheists don't go with natural selection as the right idea. There have been all sorts of other ones an natural selection is the most workable in the pile. Not all believers in natural selection are atheists anyway. Darwin wasn't.

[FATAL]

Already discussed with Nomad.
So we can safely say that the bible is full of mistakes? If not, then be a good man and read the stuff behind the link I posted

I'm sure there are Churches in every city, there is Christian programming on most television services, I'm sure the parents have Christian friends. It's the parent's fault for not teaching their children the right path. You're probably old enough to make decisions for yourself now, you could become a Christian any time you wanted.
Right. Now could you please read my question and not talk about irrelevant things?

Santa Claus existed as St. Nicholas. The myth image he has today is pure crap. So, there. Santa Claus exists, why not God? You have the whole Bible to show God's work, and the land you stand on is God's work. No proof? Yeah right.
So let me get this straight. If a fictional book has some kind of relation to the world we live in, that makes the rest of the book factual as well? Because that's what you're currently saying. Bible has numerous mistakes that simply don't work, and that makes it a fiction book. Then you'll have to start guessing what is correct and what is not, and I don't consider it being the most convincing kind of religion. I think we can safely say that studying history from the bible is like studying sea-life from shark attack.

Show me the verses that say clouds are dust from God's feet and that the Earth doesn't move.

Aye, here comes!

Nahum 1
3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet.

doesn't really leave room for debating, eh?

the universe moves around earth:

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

yup, immovable, not dozens of kilometres a second. Nor does it circle around either. The sun just moves around earth.

BONUS!!!
Earth is also flat:

Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

spheres don't have corners, so...

[Shaniac]

Religeon is comfort. It's nice to think your going to go to heaven versus rotting in the ground.

[jetflock]

JESUS MARY JOSEPH!!! Lol. I forgot...I picked up the Gnostic "Gospel of Judas" a while ago....interesting book, not much content. I recommend it if you want an alternate take on Judas and/or the purpose he serves.
In this Gospel, Jesus asks Judas to betray him and have his name stained with shit for all eternity, Judas is also the only man to really understand Jesus, and where he comes from.
Its funny becasue many many more and/or alternative gospels exists, but they were burned and/or hidden away becasue whatever idiot in power deemed them "untrue".

[Looney]

It's like the writings on Noah... There is a similar story from Mesipitaina (sp) modern Iraq called "The Epic of Gligamesh" They found a flood story in India and South America. All of these said to be written before the Noah story in the Bible. These all mention a flood and a man putting animals on a ship, boat, arc... Having said that, no one that has studied these writings seems to mention that these could be accounts of the same event. They only use it to try and disprove the Bible. I don't think we can use the Bible as a history book unless more in done to prove it is historically correct. This where "Faith" comes in and know as Christians our question will be answered when we meet our Lord.

[jetflock]

yes(edit,er, maybe no,lol.), i personally hypothesize all these myths either coming from Atlantis and/or Sumeria...
The thing that Christians should understand is....they should be questioning the bible...I grew up under many religious idiots, and they always forgot that THEY TAUGHT ME that good christians question God and they're teachers....and the only part of the bible thats really important are all the moral lessons.
Unfortunately, these same teachers get lost in all the hoopla, and in the end, atleast in my case, they would rather defend a "priest sickness" (pedophile) priest than do the right thing.lol.
I worship Pan, atleast he knows how to have a good time.*bow*

[FATAL]

It's like the writings on Noah... There is a similar story from Mesipitaina (sp) modern Iraq called "The Epic of Gligamesh" They found a flood story in India and South America. All of these said to be written before the Noah story in the Bible. These all mention a flood and a man putting animals on a ship, boat, arc... Having said that, no one that has studied these writings seems to mention that these could be accounts of the same event.
Or just different versions of the same story.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that it's physically impossible.

The bible clearly states the size of the ark, and there's no way that all of world's animals could go to the ark. The amount of food required would about double the amount of space needed. Also considering that certain insects live only a day or two, certain troubles would arise, and when those insects would actually be the food of the birds and lizards, and those lizards being the prey of bigger creatures, and that not all animals are land creatures (did Noah bring aquariums too?) we meet a conflict so great that it's hard to comprehend.

[Looney]

yes(edit,er, maybe no,lol.), i personally hypothesize all these myths either coming from Atlantis and/or Sumeria...
The thing that Christians should understand is....they should be questioning the bible...I grew up under many religious idiots, and they always forgot that THEY TAUGHT ME that good christians question God and they're teachers....and the only part of the bible thats really important are all the moral lessons.
Unfortunately, these same teachers get lost in all the hoopla, and in the end, atleast in my case, they would rather defend a "priest sickness" (pedophile) priest than do the right thing.lol.
I worship Pan, atleast he knows how to have a good time.*bow*


I question teachers and Dogma Doctrin, But I would not question God... That may seem hard to understand, but, that is how I feel. There will be a Time when my questions are answered by God. Some already have been but may not make sence to a non believer. Some was just for me that was answered through prayer. The Bible is way more than a book of Morals, that is just a small piece of what it is about.

[DooMAD]

The bible clearly states the size of the ark, and there's no way that all of world's animals could go to the ark. The amount of food required would nearly double the amount of space needed. Also considering that certain insects live only a day or two, certain troubles would arise, and when those insects would actually be the food of the birds and lizards, and those lizards being the prey of bigger creatures, and that not all animals are land creatures (did Noah bring aquariums too?) we meet a conflict so great that it's hard to comprehend.
Not to mention the issue of how much excrement 100,000,000,000 animals could produce in that length of time. Someone must have had a nasty job cleaning all that up.

[Nomad]

It's like the writings on Noah... There is a similar story from Mesipitaina (sp) modern Iraq called "The Epic of Gligamesh" They found a flood story in India and South America. All of these said to be written before the Noah story in the Bible. These all mention a flood and a man putting animals on a ship, boat, arc... Having said that, no one that has studied these writings seems to mention that these could be accounts of the same event.

It is interesting that you bring that up.

I am not going to deny that The Epic of Gilgamesh, and the story of Noah and the Flood in Genesis, may possibly depict the same event. There are three ways to deal with this.
Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story, or
The Galgamesh myth was copied from an earlier Hebrew story, or
Both were copied from a common source that predates them both.Going off of a similar theme of Judaism and Christianity "borrowing" many other things from other cultures, I'm lead to believe that the first

Christianity borrows pieces of culture from all over, undoubtedly to make it more attractive to the other belief systems that the progenators of Christianity had hoped to convert.

The example that I use most, is that Christmas mysteriously occurs around the same time that the Scandinavian paganists celebrated the winter solstice--Yule, or Jule. Many of the same rituals and traditions that we follow (And yes, I include myself in there, because although I do not celebrate Christmas as a holiday, I do celebrate it as a time for family togetherness).

Sacrificing a pig for Odin? Traditional Christmas ham.
Christmas tree? The practice of bringing nature into our own home, showing the Gods that you do not alienate yourself from the natural world; that you are one with nature.

And so on.

But how about I go further than that? What if I told you that the concepts of One God (as opposed to many, from previous religions), Heaven and Hell, the concept of a day of Final Judgement, and even the concept of a savior born of a virgin to cleanse the earth of sin may all be borrowed from elsewhere?

Seek the Zoroastrianists.

I am going to have to concoct this response in a very meticulous manner. Because Zoroastrianism is a small religion, and its scriptures are not well known, and I have not read them myself to be able to give any kind of argument to give a concrete piece of evidence that Judaism and Christianity have borrowed most of their concepts from this doctrine.

I would like to clearly state that I do not wish to debate for or against this relgion, simply because I do not know enough about it. However, you are welcome to do research on it. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism) would be a good place to start.

I would just like everyone to consider that perhaps what they are reading in the bible is not truly the Divine Word of God, but perhaps ideas written by primative men, borrowed from other, false religions designed by primative men.

[rustyslacker]

Religion is a set of beliefs based completely on faith.

I find it INSANELY difficult to place my faith in something that seems to turn everybody into idiots, namely, Christianity. Sorry.

[Looney]

I would just like everyone to consider that perhaps what they are reading in the bible is not truly the Divine Word of God, but perhaps ideas written by primative men, borrowed from other, false religions designed by primative men.

Then explain the Bible code. http://www.biblecodedigest.com/

Religion is a set of beliefs based completely on faith.

I find it INSANELY difficult to place my faith in something that seems to turn everybody into idiots, namely, Christianity. Sorry.

Then I'm an Idot to you? You say everyone... that is not possable, maybe to you they are... that is a statement that is easy the nagate.

[Looney]

Opppppsss.............

[Nomad]

Then explain the Bible code. http://www.biblecodedigest.com/Ok:

Coincidence.

[Looney]

Statistics would prove you wrong. The stats behind the number of occurancies are off the charts.

[eX_Do0mY]

Right. Now could you please read my question and not talk about irrelevant things?

I read your question, and discussed just how much Christianity is around you, and that it is really hard to miss.

So let me get this straight. If a fictional book has some kind of relation to the world we live in, that makes the rest of the book factual as well? Because that's what you're currently saying. Bible has numerous mistakes that simply don't work, and that makes it a fiction book. Then you'll have to start guessing what is correct and what is not, and I don't consider it being the most convincing kind of religion. I think we can safely say that studying history from the bible is like studying sea-life from shark attack.

Your "mistakes" are things that couldn't happen otherwise if God didn't exist. You're not taking into account that God exists.


Nahum 1
3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet.

Nahum 1:1 The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.

the universe moves around earth:

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

yup, immovable, not dozens of kilometres a second. Nor does it circle around either. The sun just moves around earth.

Have you ever known the Earth to move out of orbit? Have you ever known the Earth to move out from under your feet? It's immovable from it's normal behavioral orbit.

Earth is also flat:

Isaiah 11:12: "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
spheres don't have corners, so...

The "four corners" could be referred to the four hemispheres. This is kind of an informal statement.

Christianity borrows pieces of culture from all over, undoubtedly to make it more attractive to the other belief systems that the progenators of Christianity had hoped to convert

Have you ever thought God created these cultures, and these cultures decided to make religions of their own and borrow from God?

I've already discussed that you should inquire your preacher or minster about the Word of God. You want questions answered, go to them.

[jetflock]

I question teachers and Dogma Doctrin, But I would not question God... That may seem hard to understand, but, that is how I feel. There will be a Time when my questions are answered by God. Some already have been but may not make sence to a non believer. Some was just for me that was answered through prayer. The Bible is way more than a book of Morals, that is just a small piece of what it is about.

Wow. I didn't know God speaks to you for you not to question him/her/it(Must be just you and Bush). Tell him to hook me up with some new math skills.
(I'm kidding)

[Looney]

Wow. I didn't know God speaks to you for you not to question him/her/it(Must be just you and Bush). Tell him to hook me up with some new math skills.
(I'm kidding)

I didn't say that, so please don't Ass U ME anything. If that eludes you ...the saying goes... When you Assume you make an ASS out of U and Me.

[Nomad]

Statistics would prove you wrong. The stats behind the number of occurancies are off the charts.

Statistics can be bent to show anything. You can look for anything using this method, and undoubtedly will find it. Go buy one of the bible code software programs (note that you must buy them, since faith comes at a price), and search the New Testament for "Kill All Jews". I'm sure you will find it.

At the same time, how could this process not be considered blaspheme? Do you really need to search for hidden meaning in the bible to judge your faith in it? Would that not be Testing Faith?

The bible should not need to be interpretated with hidden meanings. The Word of God should be straightforward with no room for misintpretation.

Christianity borrows pieces of culture from all over, undoubtedly to make it more attractive to the other belief systems that the progenators of Christianity had hoped to convertHave you ever thought God created these cultures, and these cultures decided to make religions of their own and borrow from God?

I've already discussed that you should inquire your preacher or minster about the Word of God. You want questions answered, go to them.

God created these cultures, and these cultures decided to make religions of their own and borrow from God. Which religion is the right one, then? How do you know that yours isn't borrowed from the other one, and the OTHER one is right?

I can ask a minister the same things I have asked you, and get the same circle-jerk arguments that I have gotten from you. My aim isn't to learn what I already know.

[Looney]

Sorry but these stats were gone over by many scholars that I am sure are educated well above your knowledge of what the Bible code is... I doubt you had even heard about the Bible Code before my post.

I can also see you have a very closed mind to things you yourself have no expanation for. How can you prove to anyone that what you say is fact when you obviously have not studied all your supposed contradictions to the Bible?

[Nomad]

Sorry but these stats were gone over by many scholars that I am sure are educated well above your knowledge of what the Bible code is... I doubt you had even heard about the Bible Code before my post.

Hmm...

[...]please don't Ass U ME anything. If that eludes you ...the saying goes... When you Assume you make an ASS out of U and Me.

;) I have indeed heard of the Bible Code, as have just about every other American who has seen a television in the last decade.

Scholars can say a lot of things, that may not be true. Knowlege and wisdom are two different things. A man can go to school for many years, and still be dumb as a brick when it comes to things concerning common sense.

I can also see you have a very closed mind to things you yourself have no expanation for. How can you prove to anyone that what you say is fact when you obviously have not studied all your supposed contradictions to the Bible?

What have I shown that I haven't studied?

If you're referring to my suggestion regarding researching Zoroastrianism, then I can see what you mean. However, knowlege of the subject is not my point. I know enough about it to know that it, Was established slightly before Judaism, thus long before Christianity
Contains a lot of the same themesWhich, putting two and two together, I am lead to believe that the themes in Judaism and Christianity are borrowed from Zoroastrianism, and not the other way around.

[Looney]

Do I really need to define the difference between Assume and Doubt for you? :p

It may not be your point but knowledge helps make your opion have a point.

[jetflock]

oh, i was just kidding.lol.

[Looney]

;) ;) yeah I read that after I posted... some times I take things wrong when I'm deep in thought. :) Sorry :)

[Nomad]

Do I really need to define the difference between Assume and Doubt for you? :p

There isn't much of a difference. You assumed that I had not heard of the bible code.

But that's trivial. Moving on.

It may not be your point but knowledge helps make your opion have a point.

I agree. However, If you hadn't noticed (and I am not assuming; just clarifying), I explicitly stated that I had little knowlege on the subject, and did not pretend to. It is when people claim false knowlege that they lose credibility, much like ultimus666 did on page 4 (http://forums.newdoom.com/showthread.php?t=31060&page=4).

[Looney]

Humm I only have 3 pages

You just assumed my setup was the same as yours :p

Oh and BTW You made all kinds of assumtions in your first responces to my stataments about what I believe as a Christian... I'm cluing you in now that you have not a clue Why I believe. So please keep the personal assumtions to your self and so shall I.

[eX_Do0mY]

Hmm...

;) I have indeed heard of the Bible Code, as have just about every other American who has seen a television in the last decade.

Scholars can say a lot of things, that may not be true. Knowlege and wisdom are two different things. A man can go to school for many years, and still be dumb as a brick when it comes to things concerning common sense.

What have I shown that I haven't studied?

If you're referring to my suggestion regarding researching Zoroastrianism, then I can see what you mean. However, knowlege of the subject is not my point. I know enough about it to know that it, Was established slightly before Judaism, thus long before Christianity
Contains a lot of the same themesWhich, putting two and two together, I am lead to believe that the themes in Judaism and Christianity are borrowed from Zoroastrianism, and not the other way around.

People were following God long before any of these religions came about. Adam and Eve followed God, and Adam and Eve were the beginning of mankind, therefore before all other "religions," you have followers of God.

[Nomad]

Why did not God use Adam and Eve to write the bible then? That would save a lot of debate later, would it not?

[Looney]

Why did Satan choose Anton LaVey to write the satanic Bible in 1966?

[Nomad]

Why did Satan choose Anton Lavy to write the satanic Bible in 1966?

Anton LaVey wrote that book on his own free will. The Satanic Bible was written by a man, and is not the Perfect and Unerring Word of God. God inspired the writers of the bible to write it, according to theory; in essence, God wrote the bible himself.

There is a major distinction there. Being that God claims to have written the Bible himself. Why would God go and then contradict his word with something as blasphemous as the Satanic Bible?

I do not understand how that is supposed support your side of the argument, if that is what you are proclaiming? That God inspired Anton LaVey to write the book that contradicts the Word of God?

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Looney]

It wasn't meant to support any argument. :p It was as off the wall and as much of an importace as the question you asked. Come on, how do honestly expect a responce to a question such as that.

I didn't say GOD inspiered.... I said SATAN inspired!

[eX_Do0mY]

Anton LaVey wrote that book on his own free will. The Satanic Bible was written by a man, and is not the Perfect and Unerring Word of God. God inspired the writers of the bible to write it, according to theory; in essence, God wrote the bible himself.

There is a major distinction there. Being that God claims to have written the Bible himself. Why would God go and then contradict his word with something as blasphemous as the Satanic Bible?

You forgot about Satan again. Satan can mimic anything God can do, except true baptism. Remember, God gave Satan free will to be evil. Sinners can be considered evil, because they're following Satan's images.

[CyberG]

The way I see it is even if there were no violent religions in the world. Athiests would still be intolerate of religion, and still would want to put an end to other people's beliefs.

Most of the time. Religions that are violent are usually either started or re-organized by people who simply wanted to gain money and control in the first place. For example. Roman Catholicism was started by Constantine at a time when the empire was failling. Constantine originally tried to make a deal with the Bishop Millano who didn't want the congragation given over to a pollitical controled religion. Millano was later assassinated by the (false) saint Sylvester who took his place and accepted Constantine's offer. With Sylvester's help, Constantine was able to build up a following of church-going people who would support his "Holy Roman Empire" and at the same time be willing to put to death anyone who would to would refuse to accept his new religion. Bush does something simular. He used Baptist preachers who were bought and paid for, to take over churches, threaten their congrigations with being traitors unless they support and vote for Bush war on terror. As of March, Congress has created executive order 13397 which causes all churches signed up for non-profit statis to spy on church goers to report criticism against a govemnment leader(s).

The fact is that, the religions that are dangerous are usually the ones who are bought and paid for by the government.

If anyone is interested:
Nancy Levant -- Exec Order 13397 (http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy51.htm)

J.A. Wylie History of the Papacy (http://www.fbinstitute.com/papacy/index.htm)

Paster Steve Van Nattan -- Is America a Christian Nation? (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:E5V2OmWE4qUJ:www.blessedquietness.c om/journal/theworld/americachristian.htm+site:www.blessedquietness.com +voting&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a)


(Sorry about the spelling errors word perfect wron't let me correct them.)

[Nomad]

It wasn't meant to support any argument. :p It was as off the wall and as much of an importace as the question you asked. Come on, how do honestly expect a responce to a question such as that.

My question was not off the wall or unimportant, though! Why did God not choose Adam and Eve to write his Word, to avoid the inevitable confusion that occurs otherwise? God, being Omnipotent and All-Knowing, should be able to consider this.

If people have been following the Word of God since Adam and Eve, how come the paganist beliefs of ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, ancient Mexican (Inca, Mayan, Aztec, etc.) religions, and Native American religions are so radically different from Judaic-based religion? Or even modern religions such as Hindi, and the nativistic religions of Africa, which all support multiple gods?

Why are Eastern religions, such as dao/taoism and Buddhism so much more radically different, if from the day of Adam and Eve (read: the beginning of time), man has followed the word of god? There are hardly even deities

These aren't minor misinterpretations here, like denominations of a church. These are flat out, completely unrelated religions. If man has been following the Word of God embraced in the Bible since the day of Adam and Eve, it is unlikely there would be so much misinterpretation of this Word.

I didn't say GOD inspiered.... I said SATAN inspired!

I swear I saw that you had said "Why did God choose Anton LaVey". Either I mis-read it, or you changed it before my quote went through. ;P

I am not going to accuse you of that, however. In either case, my answer, and my question back to you remains the same. Here is why, and I will quote myself from earlier:

I will begin with saying that God is not pure good. It is illogical to say he is.

First of all. God is omnipotent. Which means, God has control over all realms--the realm we live in, on earth, heaven, AND hell. God has complete control over everything that happens in hell. God is responsible for every torture that occurs in hell. If God truly is all-loving, how could he bear to torture those who he loves?

Secondly. Lucifer, nor any of the other fallen angels, would not exist if it were not for God. God created all of the angels at once, but was not pleased--for they did not have a will of their own. However, how could Lucifer rebel against God if he had no free will?

The "proper" answer that a priest would give, would likely be that God told Lucifer to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all of the mayhem and evil that Lucifer stirs up.

That applies to your post as well, DoOmY.

[g6672D]

Interesting discussion. I find it very difficult to have faith in any gods as there is no definitive proof to their existence. Also because there's sooo many different ones out there. It's impossible to make any rational choice.

[Shaniac]

I will begin with saying that God is not pure good. It is illogical to say he is.

First of all. God is omnipotent. Which means, God has control over all realms--the realm we live in, on earth, heaven, AND hell. God has complete control over everything that happens in hell. God is responsible for every torture that occurs in hell. If God truly is all-loving, how could he bear to torture those who he loves?

Secondly. Lucifer, nor any of the other fallen angels, would not exist if it were not for God. God created all of the angels at once, but was not pleased--for they did not have a will of their own. However, how could Lucifer rebel against God if he had no free will?

The "proper" answer that a priest would give, would likely be that God told Lucifer to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all of the mayhem and evil that Lucifer stirs up.
Oh Snap! Science/Atheism 1 - Religeon 0

Woot Woot Communism! Other than the fact you cant get rich, it owns.

[Nomad]

Oh Snap! Science/Atheism 1 - Religeon 0

Woot Woot Communism! Other than the fact you cant get rich, it owns.

I'm not in this debate to "win" anything. I'm here for the sake of debate. If I manage to sway someone else's opinion, that is fine, but that is not the point. There's no reason to get haughty over something that may or may not provide proof for or against one side.

[PumpkinSmasher]

This topic really has had a huge response.

The example that I use most, is that Christmas mysteriously occurs around the same time that the Scandinavian paganists celebrated the winter solstice--Yule, or Jule. Many of the same rituals and traditions that we follow (And yes, I include myself in there, because although I do not celebrate Christmas as a holiday, I do celebrate it as a time for family togetherness).
Christmas historically wasn't the prominent Christain holiday, easter was. Most Christains will agree that Jesus was probably born in spring, why would the Caesar call for ever to migrate for a census inthe dead of winter? We celebrate Christmas in December because of the Romans. When the Romans adopted Christianity they had a holilday called Saturnalia celebrated for the god Saturn, and the winter solstice. They turned this holiday into Christmas to celebrate Jesus' birthday for the empire's new religion. So no Jesus wasn't born on December 25th.


Sacrificing a pig for Odin? Traditional Christmas ham.
Christmas tree? The practice of bringing nature into our own home, showing the Gods that you do not alienate yourself from the natural world; that you are one with nature.
Pagen tradition that were brought into Christianity much the same way as when we celebrate Christmas. This is how they celebrated the old holidays, so they celebrate their new Christain holiday in a similar manner.


But how about I go further than that? What if I told you that the concepts of One God (as opposed to many, from previous religions), Heaven and Hell, the concept of a day of Final Judgement, and even the concept of a savior born of a virgin to cleanse the earth of sin may all be borrowed from elsewhere?
Well Judaism is one of the oldest religions in the world, so I'm sure there wasn't too much to borrow from. But I won't argue with you that it is possible that all or some was "borrowed". Though most religions have very similar foundations such as an afterlife, God(s), and end times. I just have trouble believing that a man who didn't exist could make such a huge impact on the world in the way Jesus has.


If people have been following the Word of God since Adam and Eve, how come the paganist beliefs of ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, ancient Mexican (Inca, Mayan, Aztec, etc.) religions, and Native American religions are so radically different from Judaic-based religion? Or even modern religions such as Hindi, and the nativistic religions of Africa, which all support multiple gods?
Alright I'm going to have to ask you to suppose there is a God who gave us free will, and a Devil who balances it out to give humans a choice opposite of God (making free will possible). These all could have been creations by the Devil to bring people away from God in the beginning(many generations after adam and eve when the world was more populated proabably). They also could have been creation by man after everyone was dispersed after the Tower of Babel. I'm not saying I'm right, but just something more for you to think about.

Interesting discussion. I find it very difficult to have faith in any gods as there is no definitive proof to their existence.
If there was proof then it wouldn't be called faith. This is why i find it very hard to debate religion with athiests, they always want hard proof. If there was hard proof then it wouldn't be faith. The only proof you can have is the religous experiences people who truley believe experience. If you seek God, he will find you. I would love to make others believe, but I'm not going to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. It's a choice one can only make for themself.


"It is better to believe and find out there is no God, than to not believe and find out there is a God" - Albert Einstein

Incase yall would like to know I am a protestant Christain.

[Looney]

Nomad, You seem to want to state opinion as fact. Search the bible as you have and show the scripture that would match that opinion. No where in the Bible does it state Angels had no free will.

[Shaniac]

I'm not in this debate to "win" anything. I'm here for the sake of debate. If I manage to sway someone else's opinion, that is fine, but that is not the point. There's no reason to get haughty over something that may or may not provide proof for or against one side.

Sorry, I was just expressing in a little child way that he had a good point, not meaning to offend.

[Nomad]

Nomad, You seem to want to state opinion as fact. Search the bible as you have and show the scripture that would match that opinion. No where in the Bible does it state Angels had no free will.

It does not state that they do have free will, however.

Think about why Angels were created. Angels were created to act as intermediaries between God and Man, and to be guides for Man to aid in God's Will. They were created to fulfil the will of God, and do not exist to fulfil any other purpose.

In other words, unless it is the will of God for them to have free will, then they do not. It was God's will for Lucifer, Satan, Beelzebub, and all the other fallen angels to rebel against God.

There is not one single passage in the bible that says this, however when you put all of the pieces together, that is what you are presented with.

If Angels do have complete free will, they are obviously already superior beings to us, with the ability for instantaneous knowlege and infinite strength, why does God favor humans as the creation that he is proud of over the clearly superior angels? Why does he favor us over the angels, when we clearly cause much more problem and grievance to the Lord than the angels do?

It's illogical when you do not consider the idea that we have complete free will, while the angels are subject completely to the will of the Lord.

Looney, I do not claim to know everything. However, it does not take a nuclear physicist to put Two and Two together to make Four.

[Looney]

It does not state that they do have free will, however.
So this means that they automaticly have no free will..... Still doesn't support your opinion, in fact it weakens it.

[Nomad]

Read the rest of the post too, Looney.

Again, I ask, what makes us special over the angels? Without free will, we are clearly inferior. That is the one thing that makes us special in the eyes of the Lord. By process of elimination, it is the free will that makes us worth all of the grievences that we cause God.

[eX_Do0mY]

I'm going to break down the all winning post of Nomad's.

I will begin with saying that God is not pure good. It is illogical to say he is.

Everything he made, he made with good intentions.

First of all. God is omnipotent. Which means, God has control over all realms--the realm we live in, on earth, heaven, AND hell. God has complete control over everything that happens in hell. God is responsible for every torture that occurs in hell. If God truly is all-loving, how could he bear to torture those who he loves?

Yes, God has the choice to control all. Yes, God has the choice to control what happens in Hell. God IS NOT responsible for the torture that occurs in Hell. Mankind's choices are why they are in Hell in the first place. God is all-loving, but he serves justice to everyone.

Secondly. Lucifer, nor any of the other fallen angels, would not exist if it were not for God. God created all of the angels at once, but was not pleased--for they did not have a will of their own. However, how could Lucifer rebel against God if he had no free will?

God apparently did give the angels free will. God apparently said they had the choice to do what they wanted with their everlasting life. God never told Lucifer to go rebel against his creator, tempt mankind with his image, and be a menace to the entire world. IF He did, show me where it says in His word that He did.

The "proper" answer that a priest would give, would likely be that God told Lucifer to rebel. Therefore, God is responsible for all of the mayhem and evil that Lucifer stirs up.

Discussed.

[Nomad]

God apparently did give the angels free will.

Ok, where is this demonstrated in the bible?

God apparently said they had the choice to do what they wanted with their everlasting life.

Again, where is this demonstrated in the bible?

Any time an angel appears in the bible, he/she/it has an explicit purpose for being there, and it always just so happens that he/she/it is fulfilling that purpose in God's Will.

Nowhere does the bible ever mention any of the angels doing anything without purpose of doing something in God's Will -- except for the "evil" angels rebelling against Him.

Why should it not be not in God's will for the fallen angels to rebel against Him, if everything else the angels have been described doing have been in God's Will; doing things for specific purposes.

God never told Lucifer to go rebel against his creator, tempt mankind with his image, and be a menace to the entire world. IF He did, show me where it says in His word that He did.

It is implied. If you want to get down and dirty with it, in this situation, niether of our points can be shown in the scripture, so argument is pointless. Both of our arguments are purely projection.

However, I still put the question out there: What, if not for free will, makes us so special in the eyes of the Lord? Again, the angels are clearly superior beings to us, so why does God go through all of the trouble to make sure we get to be with him in Heaven when we die?

A popular respons may be that God Loves All Of His Creations Equally, so he loves angels and human beings the same.

Why is it, then, has God not given the fallen angels that supposedly chose to rebel against him another chance to redeem themselves? Why is there not a "Christ Angel" that the other angels can kill in order to gain forgiveness for their sins?

Wouldn't that be a nice story to help the case for Jesus? Satan sinned, but God loves him and gave him another chance too--so it must be true that we get another chance too!

But he doesn't. There's nothing there like that. Evidently, the angels are not entitled to the same right to have a second chance to reedeem themselves as we do.

This does not sound like an all-loving God to me?

[ultimus666]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold it right there. Let me remind you who wrote the bible: God. I'm quite sure God knew how many different animals there were. With that statement right there, you acknowlege that the bible was written by primitave men, and your argument is hereby invalid.



I do not recall any mention of the flood being "selective" to a single continent. God specifically states,



If you have not read the bible, please do so before you continue to debate. You obviously have no knowlege of your religion.



No. Jesus Christ says himself,


Which means all of those people, regardless of how good they are, went straight to hell.

Again, If you have not read the bible, please do so before you continue to debate. You obviously have no knowlege of your religion.
Dammit, fuck off!Don't you realize there are different vesions of the bible!? Not every single version says the exact same thing!Why not let me believe what i want to beilieve!
Obviously you read a different version than i have! Besides why would God just make Noah wait while he listed every animal in existance!My god is a mixture of the egyptian, sumerian, and lots of other gods! So technicly, if you worship any them, your worshiping the almighty lord! Which means if you are an atheist, you'll go to hell!

[Nomad]

Dammit, fuck off!Don't you realize there are different vesions of the bible!? Not every single version says the exact same thing!Why not let me believe what i want to beilieve!

With the existance of so many different versions and translations of the bible, there is no way to be sure which one is correct. Therefore we have a mass incoherence at hand. You may claim that your particular version of the bible is correct, but DoOmY also claims that his version of the bible is correct.

Which one of you is right, then?

And at that rate, if the Bible is the Perfect and Unerring Word of God, Written By God, shouldn't there only be one version anyway?

Obviously you read a different version than i have! Besides why would God just make Noah wait while he listed every animal in existance!My god is a mixture of the egyptian, sumerian, and lots of other gods! So technicly, if you worship any them, your worshiping the almighty lord! Which means if you are an atheist, you'll go to hell!

According to eX_DoOmY, any god you worship that is not the One and True Lord, is Satan.

The bible versions we are both familiar with are not different where the Ten Commandments are concerned, and the commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Take Any Other Gods Before Me" is the same in both versions. That means that if you worship the sun disk Ra, you go to hell. If you worship Enki, you go to hell. If you worship any other gods than the One and True Lord, you go to hell, because that is Satan tempting you with images of other gods than the One and True Lord, and not the One and True Lord himself.

So again, if you have not read the bible, please be sure to do so before you continue this debate.

[g6672D]

Unfortunately, taking part in religion "just in case it's true" is a Catch 22 situation. You actually have to believe in <Deity> to be a part of it which isn't possible if you take that cynical approach.

[FATAL]

I read your question, and discussed just how much Christianity is around you, and that it is really hard to miss.
by the way, answering questions in a debate gives you bonus points!

Have you ever known the Earth to move out of orbit? Have you ever known the Earth to move out from under your feet? It's immovable from it's normal behavioral orbit.
The "four corners" could be referred to the four hemispheres. This is kind of an informal statement.
Very well, so some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, others not. This raises another problem: What is the correct way to interpret the bible? Mind you, all denominations of christianity read exactly the same bible, only they take certain parts literally where others don't and vice versa. Yet all those denominations are the creation of the imperfect man. God hasn't noted what parts of the bible should be taken literally and what symbolically.

You say that your denomination is correct, and others are wrong, even though your denomination is the creation of a man, and not god. If it were a creation of god, then it would read in the bible that "this next part is to be taken literally" and "here you should think of a deeper meaning, don't take everything literally, but look at the symbolism of the words". As far as I know, the bible doesn't advice on how to interpret certain parts of it.

Either the bible has to be taken totally literally, or not at all. Otherwise we need god to come down here and tell us what parts we should interpret and how. However, if the latter doesn't happen, the bible loses either all credibility (the word is flat and totally fixed in the universe just for example), or just becomes a nice story book (nothing is to be taken literally). A man shall not use the word of god as he pleases. Using the bible to accomplish own made goals is a great sin. If god doesn't tell to take only the symbolical meaning of certain stories, then what right do we have to do so?

[eX_Do0mY]

by the way, answering questions in a debate gives you bonus points!

Bonus? WTF?

Very well, so some parts of the bible are to be taken literally, others not. This raises another problem: What is the correct way to interpret the bible? Mind you, all denominations of christianity read exactly the same bible, only they take certain parts literally where others don't and vice versa. Yet all those denominations are the creation of the imperfect man. God hasn't noted what parts of the bible should be taken literally and what symbolically.

Things in the Old Testament like some of you have listed can't really be taken seriously, but the rules of the Christian Life and how to look upon the world is in plain text, no room for interpretation.

You say that your denomination is correct, and others are wrong, even though your denomination is the creation of a man, and not god. If it were a creation of god, then it would read in the bible that "this next part is to be taken literally" and "here you should think of a deeper meaning, don't take everything literally, but look at the symbolism of the words". As far as I know, the bible doesn't advice on how to interpret certain parts of it.

That's the preacher's and minister's jobs. They're supposed to teach the Word at the best of their ability, and without any type of bias. And just how is my denomination the creation of man?

Either the bible has to be taken totally literally, or not at all. Otherwise we need god to come down here and tell us what parts we should interpret and how. However, if the latter doesn't happen, the bible loses either all credibility (the word is flat and totally fixed in the universe just for example), or just becomes a nice story book (nothing is to be taken literally). A man shall not use the word of god as he pleases. Using the bible to accomplish own made goals is a great sin. If god doesn't tell to take only the symbolical meaning of certain stories, then what right do we have to do so?

You forgot about the fact that God knows that man is not perfect. If there are any questions about the Word, and not "questioning" the Word, he will answer them when the time comes.

Ok, where is this demonstrated in the bible?

Again, where is this demonstrated in the bible?

Any time an angel appears in the bible, he/she/it has an explicit purpose for being there, and it always just so happens that he/she/it is fulfilling that purpose in God's Will.

Nowhere does the bible ever mention any of the angels doing anything without purpose of doing something in God's Will -- except for the "evil" angels rebelling against Him.

Psalm 103:20-21 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure." Their purpose is to do His commandments, hearken to His voice, and do His pleasure.

This is their purpose, but because Satan's rebellion is NOT their purpose, and 1/3 of the angels followed Satan, they had some type of free will. It's called REBELLION for a reason. To break free of something.

Why should it not be not in God's will for the fallen angels to rebel against Him, if everything else the angels have been described doing have been in God's Will; doing things for specific purposes.

Why should it? If it was God's will that would make God seem like He was supporting the evil of the world.

It is implied. If you want to get down and dirty with it, in this situation, niether of our points can be shown in the scripture, so argument is pointless. Both of our arguments are purely projection.

This is a subject that we should drop then.

Why is it, then, has God not given the fallen angels that supposedly chose to rebel against him another chance to redeem themselves? Why is there not a "Christ Angel" that the other angels can kill in order to gain forgiveness for their sins?

Giving Satan a second chance is like letting Benedict Arnold back into the Union Army. God states treason is sin, and therefore is punishable by being cast into the lake of fire for eternity. He did just that. When you're in Hell, you're there for a reason and you're there for good.

Wouldn't that be a nice story to help the case for Jesus? Satan sinned, but God loves him and gave him another chance too--so it must be true that we get another chance too!

Not really.

But he doesn't. There's nothing there like that. Evidently, the angels are not entitled to the same right to have a second chance to reedeem themselves as we do.

No, angels are perfect, and are supposed to obey God at all costs. If your child disobeys, you punish them, and you never say sorry to your child for administering discipline. Same situation.

This does not sound like an all-loving God to me?

God is loving, but is just. He serves justice to everyone.

[Nomad]

Things in the Old Testament like some of you have listed can't really be taken seriously, but the rules of the Christian Life and how to look upon the world is in plain text, no room for interpretation.

Haha. Cute. So which parts are you to take seriously and which aren't?

And who says so? Your minister? A man? Because God does not say anywhere in there, "Oh, this part is just a story for morals--you dont' have to take it seriously". If God does not say so, then it is not so.

I completely support FATAL's point that the bible is either to be taken completely seriously and literally, or not at all. There is no middle ground.

That's the preacher's and minister's jobs. They're supposed to teach the Word at the best of their ability, and without any type of bias. And just how is my denomination the creation of man?

You forgot about the fact that God knows that man is not perfect. If there are any questions about the Word, and not "questioning" the Word, he will answer them when the time comes.

I don't recall God saying anywhere that your church is The Church of the Lord. All denominations are the creation of Man.

And if it is the preachers' and ministers' jobs to teach the Word to the best of the ability, God is giving a LOT of leeway. There is a LOT of area for Satan to exhert his influence, which implies that your denomination is the ONLY Satan free denomination, but God should realize this and be more impartial, right? Isn't that what an All-Loving God would do?

Which brings me to realize that your argument is becoming very incoherent. First, you claim that YOUR church is THE One and True Church of the Lord, but now you are saying that God realizes that men are imperfect and will be more impartial.

Please pick an argument a stick with it.

[eX_Do0mY]

Haha. Cute. So which parts are you to take seriously and which aren't?

And who says so? Your minister? A man? Because God does not say anywhere in there, "Oh, this part is just a story for morals--you dont' have to take it seriously". If God does not say so, then it is not so.

God helps those who support Him. He can help the preachers to teach the Word correctly.

I completely support FATAL's point that the bible is either to be taken completely seriously and literally, or not at all. There is no middle ground.

You have the right to your own opinion.

I don't recall God saying anywhere that your church is The Church of the Lord. All denominations are the creation of Man.

"The Lord's Church" is not a denomination. It's a Church with Christ as the head of the body, and all those who believe and are baptised, in other words, saved, make up the rest of the body.

And if it is the preachers' and ministers' jobs to teach the Word to the best of the ability, God is giving a LOT of leeway. There is a LOT of area for Satan to exhert his influence, which implies that your denomination is the ONLY Satan free denomination, but God should realize this and be more impartial, right? Isn't that what an All-Loving God would do?

I never said "Church of Christ is the only Satan free denomination." I said this is the denomination that has left me with no questions about the Lord, and his plans for salvation. Sure, you can be part of a different denomination, and be saved. As long as that denomination follows the rules.

Which brings me to realize that your argument is becoming very incoherent. First, you claim that YOUR church is THE One and True Church of the Lord, but now you are saying that God realizes that men are imperfect and will be more impartial.

You don't realize that is the case. He realizes that man isn't perfect, but he isn't going to let Satan taint the teachings of one who is following the rules.

Please pick an argument a stick with it.

That's my arguement, and I'm sticking to it.

[FATAL]

Things in the Old Testament like some of you have listed can't really be taken seriously, but the rules of the Christian Life and how to look upon the world is in plain text, no room for interpretation.
What? Bible cannot be taken seriously? Besides, who are you to define what should be taken seriously and what not? I say let the god speak for himself, it's his book.

If god is so almighty, then why didn't he clear things up in the first place? It is obvious that he knew I would one day come and ask these questions.


As for your recent post...

You are sticking to your usual style, not answering any questions.

"already answered" is not an answer, just as me and nomad have had to repeat things numerous times, so must you too, even though it may seem silly.

[Nomad]

Psalm 103:20-21 Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word. Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure." Their purpose is to do His commandments, hearken to His voice, and do His pleasure.

That seems to support my side of the argument more than anything.

This is their purpose, but because Satan's rebellion is NOT their purpose, and 1/3 of the angels followed Satan, they had some type of free will. It's called REBELLION for a reason. To break free of something.

Why should it? If it was God's will that would make God seem like He was supporting the evil of the world.

Put two and two together. It would seem that he would be supporting the evil of the world, yes. Because it was his will for Them to rebel.

This is a subject that we should drop then.

You're welcome to, but my interpretation still stands ;)

Giving Satan a second chance is like letting Benedict Arnold back into the Union Army. God states treason is sin, and therefore is punishable by being cast into the lake of fire for eternity. He did just that. When you're in Hell, you're there for a reason and you're there for good.

Now, what is the difference between Adam and Eve sinning, and Satan (The King of Tyre as described in Ezekiel) sinning in Eden? Why was Satan thrown into Hell, but Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden? Adam and Eve would be given a second chance, but Satan would not?

No, angels are perfect, and are supposed to obey God at all costs. If your child disobeys, you punish them, and you never say sorry to your child for administering discipline. Same situation.

If angels are perfect, why did Satan have the capicity to sin then? That means either: If things that are perfect have the capacity to sin, then God has the capacity to sin (Which destroys the idea of a Perfect God doesn't it?), or
God created Satan with the capacity to sin, because it was in his WillDoes that not make sense? It does to me.

God is loving, but is just. He serves justice to everyone.

Right. Except to Angels, which can only fuck up once.


God helps those who support Him. He can help the preachers to teach the Word correctly.

"The Lord's Church" is not a denomination. It's a Church with Christ as the head of the body, and all those who believe and are baptised, in other words, saved, make up the rest of the body.

I am confused. If "The Lord's Church" is not a denomination, what is it? Would it be, like, a gathering of denominations or what?

I never said "Church of Christ is the only Satan free denomination." I said this is the denomination that has left me with no questions about the Lord, and his plans for salvation. Sure, you can be part of a different denomination, and be saved. As long as that denomination follows the rules.

But who are you, or your preacher or minister, to say what rules are the correct rules to follow? You are but Mere Mortals. God should spell these rules out for us, like he did in the Ten Commandments.



You don't realize that is the case. He realizes that man isn't perfect, but he isn't going to let Satan taint the teachings of one who is following the rules.

Who is to say that Satan has tainted teachings or not, though? What if there are simple errors of human stupidity, that Satan had no part of? They still go to hell, because it is not the correct word, right?

That's my arguement, and I'm sticking to it.

I sure wouldn't make a boat out of your argument, because it would sink immediately. ;)

[rustyslacker]

God is loving, but is just. He serves justice to everyone.
Right. Except to Angels, which can only fuck up once.
Loving and just. Athiests, and those who follow the WRONG religion, DESERVE to burn in hell FOREVAR!
God should spell these rules out for us, like he did in the Ten Commandments.
Odd that He hasn't been talking for a while.
I am confused. If "The Lord's Church" is not a denomination, what is it? Would it be, like, a gathering of denominations or what?
If all the Christians were forced to unite under one "denomination", I bet they would all get pissed at each other and kill each other off.

[Shaniac]

Whoa guys, let's back up a bit this is becoming a:
"Science says: blah blah
Bible says: blah blah" Fight

The difference between religeon and science is that Religeon has never tried to grasp the concept that there might not be a god, while science has thought "maybe".

[Nomad]

Whoa guys, let's back up a bit this is becoming a:
"Science says: blah blah,
Bible says: blah blah" Fight

The difference between religeon and science is that Religeon has never tried to grasp the concept that there might not be a god, while science has thought "maybe".

How is it becoming that way, really?

The biggest difference between religion and science is that science deals with the concrete details of the universe around us; things that CAN be proven. Religion and science can be compatible, however the discussion here isn't really dealing with science vs. religion.

We're dealing with religion vs. non-religion.

[Shaniac]

Nomad, Science backs up atheism.

[Nomad]

However, if God created the Laws and behaviors of science, shouldn't science completely support religion?

And I am not using science as a backing for why God is imaginary. I may be using scientific method, observing the world around me, but I am using what is said in the bible as backing for why God is imaginary.

[ultimus666]

Nomad, i now see something wrong with your arguement about the tsunami. of course God willingly sent all those people to hell. he's done it before and that time he killed even more people.God helps us in tiny ways so we don't know he did'nt do anything at all. If we did know he was helping us, we would rely entirely on him. If he did'nt do anything at all, we would stop believing entirely. He is helping us, but we don't know he is.Now shut the fuck up.

[Shaniac]

Ultimus666, you stole that from an episode of Futurama.

[FATAL]

However, if God created the Laws and behaviors of science, shouldn't science completely support religion?
Yes, if god is, then the bible should point out the laws of physics and such as they actually are, because it's the unerring word of god. However, if this book says that "earth is fixed in place", then it has an error, and we can safely assume that
A) It hasn't been written by god
B) This god can make mistakes
And since christianity bases itself on the belief that bible is written by god, and that god doesn't make mistakes, this proves that the whole thing doesn't have any base whatsoever.


Ultimus, can I come and help you get yourself killed? I can bring knives if you don't have them. I mean, if I kill you, it must be god's will.

[Shaniac]

And appearently, according to god, pi is 3.00.

[Nomad]

Nomad, i now see something wrong with your arguement about the tsunami. of course God willingly sent all those people to hell. he's done it before and that time he killed even more people.God helps us in tiny ways so we don't know he did'nt do anything at all. If we did know he was helping us, we would rely entirely on him. If he did'nt do anything at all, we would stop believing entirely. He is helping us, but we don't know he is.

He killed over 200,000 people, just to send roughly 4,000 to heaven, not giving the others a chance to "repent" or find Christ? Again I ask, how many of those people were children?

That does not sound like "helping" us to me.

Now shut the fuck up.

Real mature. :) I'm sorry, but I just cannot take you seriously.

[rustyslacker]

He killed over 200,000 people, just to send roughly 4,000 to heaven, not giving the others a chance to "repent" or find Christ? Again I ask, how many of those people were children?

That does not sound like "helping" us to me.
Of course it doesn't, you stupid athiest. God works in mysterious ways, unbeknownst to mortals. They're even MORE unbeknownst to athiests, agnostics, and people who aren't the right religion. Now shut the fuck up.

[eX_Do0mY]

That seems to support my side of the argument more than anything.

Put two and two together. It would seem that he would be supporting the evil of the world, yes. Because it was his will for Them to rebel.

Your atheist logic would tell you so.

You're welcome to, but my interpretation still stands ;)

Mine does too. Mine doesn't stand just because you gave another.

Now, what is the difference between Adam and Eve sinning, and Satan (The King of Tyre as described in Ezekiel) sinning in Eden? Why was Satan thrown into Hell, but Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden? Adam and Eve would be given a second chance, but Satan would not?

Satan was an angel. I'm sure Adam and Eve had to make it up to God somehow. God puts you in Hell for a reason.

If angels are perfect, why did Satan have the capicity to sin then?

We bring that hint of free will back into the picture.

If things that are perfect have the capacity to sin, then God has the capacity to sin (Which destroys the idea of a Perfect God doesn't it?), or God created Satan with the capacity to sin, because it was in his Will. Does that not make sense? It does to me.

Sure, God may have the capacity to sin, but does he? No. God may have granted angels the ability so sin, but he laid out specific rules they had to follow too. Namely the verse I named. Sin didn't exist in today's form until Satan rebelled though.

Right. Except to Angels, which can only fuck up once.

Well, you shouldn't expect anything lesser than perfect from something that is perfect.

I am confused. If "The Lord's Church" is not a denomination, what is it? Would it be, like, a gathering of denominations or what?

The Lord's Church is everyone who has followed God's plans for salvation, and has followed his rules faithfully. Therefore, those who are saved, and repent when they sin.

But who are you, or your preacher or minister, to say what rules are the correct rules to follow? You are but Mere Mortals. God should spell these rules out for us, like he did in the Ten Commandments.

The rules humans follow are specifically stated.

Who is to say that Satan has tainted teachings or not, though? What if there are simple errors of human stupidity, that Satan had no part of? They still go to hell, because it is not the correct word, right?

Satan's taintings can be blamed off for that.

I sure wouldn't make a boat out of your argument, because it would sink immediately. ;)

I'll go down with my ship.

However, if God created the Laws and behaviors of science, shouldn't science completely support religion?

And I am not using science as a backing for why God is imaginary. I may be using scientific method, observing the world around me, but I am using what is said in the bible as backing for why God is imaginary.

Just because God doesn't follow the theory of natural selection, or the law of conservation of mass, doesn't mean He doesn't exist or can't create something so wonderful out of pure nothing. That's why He's God.

What? Bible cannot be taken seriously? Besides, who are you to define what should be taken seriously and what not? I say let the god speak for himself, it's his book.

God answers questions when he feels, and it should be taken seriously, but the main thing is to recieve the values of the stories.

If god is so almighty, then why didn't he clear things up in the first place? It is obvious that he knew I would one day come and ask these questions.

God answers questions when he wants. You can ask questions when the day comes.

As for your recent post...

You are sticking to your usual style, not answering any questions.

"already answered" is not an answer, just as me and nomad have had to repeat things numerous times, so must you too, even though it may seem silly.

Showing that the questions are already answered just says that we're running in circles and beating a dead horse.

[Sigma]

One of several withstanding arguments is derived from the "fact" God created the entire universe, the angels and mankind. The definition of God:

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Considering this, God is responsible for the creation of Lucifer and directly responsible for his rebellion. Lucifer had chosen to rebel because of the admiration God had for Adam (mankind), despite the angels being superior beings. God is omniscient, created Lucifer and gave him "free-will," therefore he would have known Lucifer would rebel even before creating mankind. God also would have known Lucifer (the cast down manifestation of the same being; Satan) would attempt to taint mankind. Therefore, God is indirectly responsible for mankind's suffering. At this point, God's love for mankind becomes an incoherence.

Well, you shouldn't expect anything lesser than perfect from something that is perfect.

This applies to God as well. If the current state of our world demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that God has made a few mistakes of his own.

The sections of the Bible about Noah's ark are humorous. What good does a massive flood with the intention of annihilating life (minus the "chosen" few) do without even touching the true problem (Satan)? This, coupled with the other arguments made here manages to put a titanic hole in this part of the Bible and the Torah.

For the pure sake of debate, who is to proclaim that Christianity is not, in truth, the denomination of Satan? In the instance Jesus Christ even existed, he might very well have been a demon or even Satan himself (since Satan can assume any form he wishes), which would (could) account for all of the things he supposedly did. This may have been created to mislead people from the "true word," that being the word of Judaism. Satan would not inform people of who he was, in reality, as this would force people to conglomerate back to Judaism in their error. Futhermore, since an act from God is a direct negation of free-will, God would not have done anything (he would have allowed this to happen). Afterall, God wants you to choose his word according to your own free-will and trust yourself to know which one is correct.

God answers questions when he feels, and it should be taken seriously, but the main thing is to recieve the values of the stories.

This is true. The Bible is nothing but stories (parables). However, religion only needs to be abolished to the extents Nomad spoke of because the reason people take religion literally and seriously. Your God has become a prison for many people and religion has become a way of justifying horrible things.

There are simply far too many reasons to support arguments against religion. Judaism and the various Christian faiths cannot even determine which account/belief is true, much less either faith with the implementation of Gnostic variables. Then there are the other religions to deal with, the various denominations of each one of them and finally, the powerful and unstoppable force of science (but there seems to be a deliberate avoidance of this, probably for the sake of the health of the entire debate, so I will avoid it as well-- for now).

Tolerance for faith would be acceptable if I wasn't reading stories about Israel bombing it's neighbor countries (which happens to be a direct negation of one of the Ten Commandments), President Bush using God to justify and gather support for his (America's) ridiculous ambitions or Adolf Hitler using his Christian stance to manifest one of the largest genocides in history, et cetera (insert an infinite seeming number of similar stories, on varying scales).

The Ten Commandments specifically state "Thou shall not kill," so killing is killing. Therefore, David Berkowitz (the son of Sam, the .44 killer; who was ironically inspired to kill by religion), is barely worse than an American soldier killing people because his nation told him to. As a matter of fact, some American/British/et cetera soldiers are most certainly far worse.

---

The recognized religion of Satanism has nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism other than being the inspiration of its name and a few of the points within the Satanic Bible itself. Anton LaVey delibrately chose the title Satanism because of his disgust with the Christian religion and Christian's general disposition. Satanists do not believe in a traditional God, it is actually more like self-worship (though some Satanists will go as far as proclaim themselves to be gods), nor does a Satanist believe in Satan. This religion is garbage as well, despite it setting higher standards for humanity to attempt to live by and disposing of the ridiculous slave/master relationships that are so prevalent in Christianity and Judaism.

---

If God is all powerful, can he create a stone that not even he can lift?

I enjoy using this philosophical question because it puts the belief in God in its place. A belief that makes absolutely no logical sense.

[jetflock]

Hmm....everyone should just live a somewhat moral life, treating others as they would treat themselves. As primitive beings, we haven't the brains to even contemplate God.
We can only consider the possibility of God-though we will never understand what IT is.
Take all the wisdom from Holy books, all they're messages. Thats all you can do. To take any moral lesson literally would display your own ignorance.
Most people have a doctrine smeared into they're skulls at such an early age.....thats a shame.

[cary123]

if god is perfiect how did he make misstakes

[Nomad]

Your atheist logic would tell you so.

Haha! So, there is more than one form of rational reasoning, also known as logic? Please explain this concept. I would like to know more about how Believers have their own special laws of logic and probability. This interests me.

Satan was an angel. I'm sure Adam and Eve had to make it up to God somehow. God put you in Hell for a reason.

That sure is fair. Definitely the work of an All-Loving God.

We bring that hint of free will back into the picture.

Please see Sigma's post above Cary123's.

Sure, God may have the capacity to sin, but does he? No. God may have granted angels the ability so sin, but he laid out specific rules they had to follow too. Namely the verse I named. Sin didn't exist in today's form until Satan rebelled though.

Certainly God would have the capacity to sin, since he would need to know exactly what sin is. However, I suppose I will cecede that God may not choose to sin.

However, perfection is perfection. God made the angels Perfect, thus Satan rebelling is purely illogical, because he is Perfect. If Satan can sin, he is therefore not perfect.

I'm not using any special logic here. A two year old can come to this same assumption, and you said yourself that children are blameless, right?

Well, you shouldn't expect anything lesser than perfect from something that is perfect.

This applies to God as well. If the current state of our world demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that God has made a few mistakes of his own.

If God did not plan on Satan rebelling, then he is perfoming a lack of omniscience and omnipotence, which is contradiction. On the flip side, he knew full well that Satan would rebel and tempt his less perfect, mortal creations, and created him anyway, so is fully responsible for Satan's rebellion.

Again, I would like to note that I am not using any special logic here.

The Lord's Church is everyone who has followed God's plans for salvation, and has followed his rules faithfully. Therefore, those who are saved, and repent when they sin.

I'm interested to hear your response to Jesus possibly being Satan incarnate, since you said yourself that he is capable of doing anything God can do but true baptism.

The rules humans follow are specifically stated.

Where?

Satan's taintings can be blamed off for that.

So, if EVERY evil act in the world is Satan influence, where is our free will?

I'll go down with my ship.

Hope you can swim. ;)

Just because God doesn't follow the theory of natural selection, or the law of conservation of mass, doesn't mean He doesn't exist or can't create something so wonderful out of pure nothing. That's why He's God.

This brings up an interesting contradiction about prayer and Jesus' promise to fulfil them to believers, but specifically cannot.

Prayer is superstition, and has been practiced long before Judaism and Christianity came about, and by many, many different beliefsets. It is equally likely that you will recieve help from praying to "God" as you would asking a "Lucky Horseshoe" for help.

Prayer is nothing but superstition. According to Dictionary.com,

Superstition:
An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.


For example, here's an experiment. Take six, six-sided dice (you know, normal cubed ones), and roll them once to try to get six sixes.

Now, pray to God to help you roll six sixes on those dice and roll them, and see what happens.

Now, take a superstitious object, like a horseshoe, or a rabbit's foot, or whatever, and then do the same thing: ask the object to help you roll six sixes.

You can do this experiment a thousand times each, and you will reach the same conclusion.

Now, some who are more "educated" in Christianity, will come up with dozens of excuses as to why this does not work. "It is not in God's Will," "God cannot bend the laws of probability," or, "This is too obvious of a miracle -- God wants to keep hidden, so as not to destroy believers' faith"

Yet, these arguments bring up loads of paradox.

The argument "It is not in God's Will" is a common one. But if something is in God's Will to occur, won't it happen anyway without need for prayer?

For example, say, you are a female and have a tumor of uteran cancer. The doctor projects that either you can take drastic measure and have an immediate hysterectomy, or you can try treating it with chemical therapy and see if anything happens.

Most people would probably rather try the therapy route, especially if they are young, and wish to have children some day.

You pray to God that the therapy works.

Now, a month later, you go in for an X-Ray, and lo and behold, the tumor has shrunken!

Now, let's analyse what has happened here. There are an infinite amount of cases where praying to God has helped--and an infinte amount of cases where it has not. But which ones do you hear about the most? The only reason that prayer appears to help, is that you only hear about the cases where people have prayed, and have recovered.

You do not hear about the other cases, because they have prayed--and now are dead.

What we are seeing here is not the Power of God. What we are seeing is the Power of Coincidence. You just so happened to pray to God, and you just so happened to recover.

Now, this, in a round-about way, goes back to, "It is not in God's Will for the others to have recovered."

But, however, not answering prayer is a contradiction to what Jesus said dozens of times in the bible. For example, in Mark 11:24, Jesus says:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Sounds pretty unambiguous to me. Also, in Matthew 17:20, Jesus says:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Here Jesus claims that those with even just a little bit of faith, can ask God to move a mountain and it will be so.

In niether case does, does Jesus say, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, unless it is against The Lord's Will, or will bend the laws of nature and probability, or is too obvious, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

Believers may begin to concoct even more excuses now--"Jesus was speaking in metaphor."

People are stupid. And two thousand years ago, they were even more stupid and gullible. Why would Jesus mislead people and not just say outright what the terms are? Why make people guess the meaning of his words, when he's laying down the holy law?

If Jesus's words aren't meant to be taken literally, then why should anything else in the bible be taken literally? Then Heaven and Hell are nothing but metaphors, and don't exist. Angels are metaphors and don't exist. The entire thing is nothing but a fairy tale.

Now how about we consider a group of people whose prayers are NEVER answered: Amputees.

There has NEVER been a case where God has regererated an amputee's missing limb or appendage. No amount of prayer will ever spontaneously regenerate a human's missing limb or appendage.

Why has God chosen this specific group of people with a problem to ignore? If it is not in God's will, it really sounds like amputees are getting the short end of the stick.

Again, excuses are concocted--"Regenerating a missing limb would be too obvious. It would make people dependant on his powers, and would destroy faith."

God parted the Red Sea for Moses. God carved his law of Ten Commandments into stone tables with his own finger. God incarnated himself into mortal form and performed many obvious miracles.

Even something such as recovering a tumor is measurable. Through x-ray you can see an obvious change, and it can be measured.

This does not sound like a God who is concerned with being "hidden."

In either case, by simply taking into account that God is imaginary, all of the mysteries, all of the contradictions, and all of the paradoxes simply disappear, and the world suddenly makes sense.

I can delve much, much deeper into this if anyone wishes, but I think I will cut it short for now.

[FATAL]

God answers questions when he feels, and it should be taken seriously, but the main thing is to recieve the values of the stories.
But you just said that parts of the old testament shouldn't be taken seriously, and you even proclaimed to know which ones! *confused*
I mean, I'm quite sure that god hasn't told anyone on this world on what parts to take seriously and what parts to take as a joke, so how can you tell? Until god comes and tells us what stuff to take seriously and what as jokes, and what parts literally and what symbolically, we can only assume that the bible is one of the two in both questions, not middle ground. (in other words, it's either to be taken totally seriously or totally as a joke, and that it's supposed to be interpreted totally literally or totally symbolically). Even if god did come and tell someone the answer, how could we know that the man isn't under satan's control? I say burn the witch! The only way for god to tell us is to implant the thought into all of our brains at the same time. However, this would negate free will, so god couldn't do that. I guess we won't have much options here.

Don't celebrate victory just yet, though. God knew this situation, so why didn't he have a backup plan? He delibirately wrote a book which no man could even know how to interpret and therefore practise the religion correctly.
Showing that the questions are already answered just says that we're running in circles and beating a dead horse.
Except that I (and I'm quite sure that Nomad and Sigma as well) don't believe we are. For example, when you said "already discussed with nomad", one would leave to believe that the conversation was lead to a conclusion, but when I asked you about it, you said that it wasn't after all. I say that it's just a cheap way of not having to answer something. That's why I propose that in future all questions will be asked no matter if you feel like they've been answered before.

[Looney]

Maybe instead of looking at the Bible as cronalogical fact, It needs to be looked at as puzzle and the pathway to solving that puzzle is to first accept that there is more to life than this life.

[eX_Do0mY]

Haha! So, there is more than one form of rational reasoning, also known as logic? Please explain this concept. I would like to know more about how Believers have their own special laws of logic and probability. This interests me.

You know the concept.

That sure is fair. Definitely the work of an All-Loving God.

You should expect something to do it's purpose, and only that. Satan stepped out of that line. Adam and Eve did, but God punished man lesser because God knows man is not perfect.

Please see Sigma's post above Cary123's.

Something wouldn't be perfect if it didn't have the capacity to do whatever it wanted.

Certainly God would have the capacity to sin, since he would need to know exactly what sin is. However, I suppose I will cecede that God may not choose to sin.

What does cecede mean? It's not in the dictionary.

However, perfection is perfection. God made the angels Perfect, thus Satan rebelling is purely illogical, because he is Perfect. If Satan can sin, he is therefore not perfect.

Something wouldn't be perfect if it didn't have the ability to do whatever it wanted.

I'm not using any special logic here. A two year old can come to this same assumption, and you said yourself that children are blameless, right?

Children aren't mature enough to believe in God. Simple reason why they're blameless.

If God did not plan on Satan rebelling, then he is perfoming a lack of omniscience and omnipotence, which is contradiction. On the flip side, he knew full well that Satan would rebel and tempt his less perfect, mortal creations, and created him anyway, so is fully responsible for Satan's rebellion.

Ok, I'll jump onto this arguement for a second. Let's say God DID plan on Satan's rebellion. He did it for a reason, and with good intentions. You could say that Satan is a test of faith for man.

I'm interested to hear your response to Jesus possibly being Satan incarnate, since you said yourself that he is capable of doing anything God can do but true baptism.

Jesus never sinned, and was never born unto sin, therefore he lived a perfect life.

Where?

Leviticus 1:3-13

3If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

4And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

5And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

6And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

7And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:

8And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

9But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

10And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

11And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

12And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

13But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Specific rules for offering one of your animals as a sacrifice to the Lord, back in the Old Testament days.

So, if EVERY evil act in the world is Satan influence, where is our free will?

I never said EVERY evil act in the world is Satan influence. With that specific statement, I was talking about the twisted teachings some of the preachers of today teach. BUT, Satan CAN take that free will away from you, for that small second.

Hope you can swim. ;)

I can swim very well actually *bliss*

This brings up an interesting contradiction about prayer and Jesus' promise to fulfil them to believers, but specifically cannot.

Prayer is superstition, and has been practiced long before Judaism and Christianity came about, and by many, many different beliefsets. It is equally likely that you will recieve help from praying to "God" as you would asking a "Lucky Horseshoe" for help.

Prayer is nothing but superstition. According to Dictionary.com,

Sure, prayer may be superstition according to Webster, but it's one true superstition, according to the Bible.

You also don't realize that people believed in God long before any other religions came about. You forgot about Adam and Eve.

For example, here's an experiment. Take six, six-sided dice (you know, normal cubed ones), and roll them once to try to get six sixes.

Now, pray to God to help you roll six sixes on those dice and roll them, and see what happens.

Now, take a superstitious object, like a horseshoe, or a rabbit's foot, or whatever, and then do the same thing: ask the object to help you roll six sixes.

You can do this experiment a thousand times each, and you will reach the same conclusion.

Now, some who are more "educated" in Christianity, will come up with dozens of excuses as to why this does not work. "It is not in God's Will," "God cannot bend the laws of probability," or, "This is too obvious of a miracle -- God wants to keep hidden, so as not to destroy believers' faith"

Why would God want to help some man roll some dice.

The argument "It is not in God's Will" is a common one. But if something is in God's Will to occur, won't it happen anyway without need for prayer?

Sure.

For example, say, you are a female and have a tumor of uteran cancer. The doctor projects that either you can take drastic measure and have an immediate hysterectomy, or you can try treating it with chemical therapy and see if anything happens.

Most people would probably rather try the therapy route, especially if they are young, and wish to have children some day.

You pray to God that the therapy works.

Now, a month later, you go in for an X-Ray, and lo and behold, the tumor has shrunken!

Now, let's analyse what has happened here. There are an infinite amount of cases where praying to God has helped--and an infinte amount of cases where it has not. But which ones do you hear about the most? The only reason that prayer appears to help, is that you only hear about the cases where people have prayed, and have recovered.

It may have been their time to go. God may not have wanted his believers to suffer through life with their problem.

You do not hear about the other cases, because they have prayed--and now are dead.

Because people always focus on the negative. You gotta take into account that your loved one is going to a better place.

What we are seeing here is not the Power of God. What we are seeing is the Power of Coincidence. You just so happened to pray to God, and you just so happened to recover.

Your atheist logic would tell you so.

Now, this, in a round-about way, goes back to, "It is not in God's Will for the others to have recovered."

But, however, not answering prayer is a contradiction to what Jesus said dozens of times in the bible. For example, in Mark 11:24, Jesus says:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

People ask for God's help in prayer. Be it that they want help from him to go through the world's troubles, or something else. But God has reasoning for why they died. God may not have wanted those people to live through the pain. Imagine what those who died "in vain" in your opinion would be like if they did survive.

Sounds pretty unambiguous to me. Also, in Matthew 17:20, Jesus says:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Here Jesus claims that those with even just a little bit of faith, can ask God to move a mountain and it will be so.

In niether case does, does Jesus say, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, unless it is against The Lord's Will, or will bend the laws of nature and probability, or is too obvious, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

Believers may begin to concoct even more excuses now--"Jesus was speaking in metaphor."

Sure the Bible may have metaphors in it. But human's DO have the ability to distinguish serious thoughts from metaphors such as that.

People are stupid. And two thousand years ago, they were even more stupid and gullible. Why would Jesus mislead people and not just say outright what the terms are? Why make people guess the meaning of his words, when he's laying down the holy law?

Jesus knows people aren't that stupid, so stupid that they can't tell serious thoughts from a metaphor. If everything was laid down straight, then the world would be perfect, no?

If Jesus's words aren't meant to be taken literally, then why should anything else in the bible be taken literally? Then Heaven and Hell are nothing but metaphors, and don't exist. Angels are metaphors and don't exist. The entire thing is nothing but a fairy tale.

You don't realize that because one thing is a metaphor, doesn't mean the whole picture is. You don't realize that Heaven and Hell are laid out seriously.

Now how about we consider a group of people whose prayers are NEVER answered: Amputees.

God answers their prayers by allowing them to live, even though they have something unnecessary missing.

There has NEVER been a case where God has regererated an amputee's missing limb or appendage. No amount of prayer will ever spontaneously regenerate a human's missing limb or appendage.

Why has God chosen this specific group of people with a problem to ignore? If it is not in God's will, it really sounds like amputees are getting the short end of the stick.

God allows them to live a full life, without their mangled limbs. Once again, people like to focus on the negative. Amputees say "Why God, didn't you allow me to keep my limbs?" God may say, "I allowed you to live, otherwise you may have died. Aren't you thankful for that?"

Again, excuses are concocted--"Regenerating a missing limb would be too obvious. It would make people dependant on his powers, and would destroy faith."

That's rediculous.

God parted the Red Sea for Moses. God carved his law of Ten Commandments into stone tables with his own finger. God incarnated himself into mortal form and performed many obvious miracles.

Even something such as recovering a tumor is measurable. Through x-ray you can see an obvious change, and it can be measured.

This does not sound like a God who is concerned with being "hidden."

Who said He was?

In either case, by simply taking into account that God is imaginary, all of the mysteries, all of the contradictions, and all of the paradoxes simply disappear, and the world suddenly makes sense.

When you use your rediculous atheist logic.

I can delve much, much deeper into this if anyone wishes, but I think I will cut it short for now.

Please do. This arguement may not continue without another serious opinion.

[FATAL]

I'd like to quote the posts me and sigma made, but that would clog things too much.

Would you be so kind to answer them?

Specific rules for offering one of your animals as a sacrifice to the Lord, back in the Old Testament days.
Yes, just what we asked for. Now where are the specific rules for interpreting bible?
Why would God want to help some man roll some dice.
To strenghten one's faith. At least he did so a few thousands years ago, why not now? Oh I forgot, god only needs to test one's faith, not strenghten it. How helpful he is!
It may have been their time to go. God may not have wanted his believers to suffer through life with their problem.
As far as I'm concerned, if god was able to spare certain people's LIVES, I'm sure he would've been able to just ease someone's pain.
You don't realize that because one thing is a metaphor, doesn't mean the whole picture is. You don't realize that Heaven and Hell are laid out seriously.
How do you know? Did god tell you? No, humans did. Man has made up this interpreting bullshit. Man has created all demoninations that exist, because all of them just interpret bible differently, and nowhere in the bible are instructions on how to interpret it.
When you use your rediculous atheist logic.
You're like the guy who's made truechristian.com, except that you are serious.

[Shaniac]

You also don't realize that people believed in God long before any other religions came about. You forgot about Adam and Eve.

Yeah, sure, according to your religeon.

[eX_Do0mY]

You're like the guy who's made truechristian.com, except that you are serious.

You guys wanna get offensive, and twist my statements around to make God look evil, I can get offensive too.

Oh yeah, on the theory of natural selection, what animal did you come from?

[FATAL]

You guys wanna get offensive, and twist my statements around to make God look evil, I can get offensive too.
No-one's twisting anything. You were asked a question, you answered, a clarification was asked, and then you say:
When you use your rediculous atheist logic.
talking about offensiviness is worthless and irrelevant, and I suggest that it wouldn't be mentioned anymore.

as for your question (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/2002projects/web/indexpage.html)

[Nomad]

Maybe instead of looking at the Bible as cronalogical fact, It needs to be looked at as puzzle and the pathway to solving that puzzle is to first accept that there is more to life than this life.

Ok. Seeing that I have a pretty good idea of what the picture the puzzle displays is supposed to look like, the pieces simply don't fit together, and some seem to be missing.

You know the concept.

No, I don't. I have been under the impression that Logic is the same for everyone. 2 + 2 = 4, does it not?

You should expect something to do it's purpose, and only that. Satan stepped out of that line. Adam and Eve did, but God punished man lesser because God knows man is not perfect.

God knew he would, however. He knew that Satan would terrorize his so adored human creations. He knew that Satan would cause them great pain. But, he created Satan anyway.

Something wouldn't be perfect if it didn't have the capacity to do whatever it wanted.

[...]

Ok, I'll jump onto this arguement for a second. Let's say God DID plan on Satan's rebellion. He did it for a reason, and with good intentions. You could say that Satan is a test of faith for man.

Looking at the big picture, that still doesn't make sense. Satan tempted man to sin, via the Serpent. There shouldn't be any testing involved. God told Adam and Eve what not to do. Agreeing that God planned on Satan's rebellion, he specifically planned that Adam and Eve would rebel as well.

I am really not seeing when "Free Will" makes its appearance here.

What does cecede mean? It's not in the dictionary.
It was a typo; it should be Secede. I meant concede anyway. Don't be a smartass.

Children aren't mature enough to believe in God. Simple reason why they're blameless.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

"Blameless" or not, that does not fit into the rules of being saved.


Jesus never sinned, and was never born unto sin, therefore he lived a perfect life.

Says the Bible, and in this scenario, that doesn't hold any water. Satan can mimic anything God can, aside from true baptism. So who says that he didn't influence the scribes that wrote the New Testament to claim that he never sinned?

Leviticus 1:3-13

3If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.

4And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

5And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

6And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.

7And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:

8And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

9But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

10And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.

11And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.

12And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:

13But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Specific rules for offering one of your animals as a sacrifice to the Lord, back in the Old Testament days.

But you said yourself that the Old Testament is not applicable anymore.

So I will ask again, where does the Bible give specific rules to follow?

I never said EVERY evil act in the world is Satan influence. With that specific statement, I was talking about the twisted teachings some of the preachers of today teach. BUT, Satan CAN take that free will away from you, for that small second.

You are saying that EVERY misinterpretation of the bible is caused by Satan's influence. I will ask again, what if teachings are "twisted" by pure human err?

Satan can take away someone's Free Will? Examples please?

Sure, prayer may be superstition according to Webster, but it's one true superstition, according to the Bible.

No. Not Webster. Webster was not just some dude that said, "Umm.. Well, this word means this, and that word means that." These are accepted definitions of words by everyone. "True Superstition" is a massive oxymoron.

You also don't realize that people believed in God long before any other religions came about. You forgot about Adam and Eve.

According to your religion.

Why would God want to help some man roll some dice.

To strengthen his faith in God.

You are avoiding the subject, and missing the point. It doesn't matter what the reason for rolling the dice is.

The point is, it doesn't matter how much faith, nor how hard you pray, you will get the same results. The reason being, the Law of Probability is the same for everyone; believers and non-believers alike.

This may not be such an important point, if it weren't explicitly promised by Jesus several times in the New Testament,


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

These passages are not ambiguous. I shouldn't need to explain what Jesus explicitly states.



Sure.

No, not "sure." If God exherts his will without the need for one of his believers praying for it, then we do not truly have free will.

It may have been their time to go. God may not have wanted his believers to suffer through life with their problem.

If he did not want them to suffer, he could have either
Let them die before they began to suffer in the first place, or
Not have allowed his believers to contract such diseases in the first place

Because people always focus on the negative. You gotta take into account that your loved one is going to a better place.

No, no, no. In this case, it is the complete opposite. Because the media wants people to believe in God. You ONLY hear about the miracle cases. The people who die do not get their side of the story.

You are assuming that all of the people who die are people that have prayed. What about those who are non-believers? According to your previous arguments, God tends to give these people another chance to find him (much like the highschool shooting scenario that I started this thread with).

And again, you are missing the point and avoiding the subject.

The point is, it doesn't matter how much faith, nor how hard you pray, you will get the same results. The reason being, the death-to-life ratio is the same for everyone for any disease; believers and non-believers alike.

This may not be such an important point, if it weren't explicitly promised by Jesus several times in the New Testament,


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

These passages are not ambiguous. I shouldn't need to explain what Jesus explicitly states.

Your atheist logic would tell you so.

I follow the same rules of Logic that your god has set forth upon creating this universe. There is no such thing as "Athiest Logic".

People ask for God's help in prayer. Be it that they want help from him to go through the world's troubles, or something else. But God has reasoning for why they died. God may not have wanted those people to live through the pain. Imagine what those who died "in vain" in your opinion would be like if they did survive.

You are missing the point yet again.

The point is, it doesn't matter how much faith, nor how hard you pray, you will get the same results. The reason being, the death-to-life ratio is the same for everyone for any disease; believers and non-believers alike.

This may not be such an important point, if it weren't explicitly promised by Jesus several times in the New Testament,


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

These passages are not ambiguous. I shouldn't need to explain what Jesus explicitly states.


Sure the Bible may have metaphors in it. But human's DO have the ability to distinguish serious thoughts from metaphors such as that.

Jesus knows people aren't that stupid, so stupid that they can't tell serious thoughts from a metaphor. If everything was laid down straight, then the world would be perfect, no?

You don't realize that because one thing is a metaphor, doesn't mean the whole picture is. You don't realize that Heaven and Hell are laid out seriously.

God should be able to account for the things that men may misinterpret, being Omniscient and all. Yes, the world would be Perfect. Why would God not want anything more than that?

God answers their prayers by allowing them to live, even though they have something unnecessary missing.

God allows them to live a full life, without their mangled limbs. Once again, people like to focus on the negative. Amputees say "Why God, didn't you allow me to keep my limbs?" God may say, "I allowed you to live, otherwise you may have died. Aren't you thankful for that?"

Their prayers may not be to live, though! No amount of prayer will regenerate a missing limb, no amount of prayer will cure a person with Down's Syndrome.

Jesus was not ambiguous when he said,


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

According to Jesus' word, and Jesus being the son/incarnated mortal form of God, and God being Omnipotent, God should have no problem with performing these requests.

That's rediculous.

Oh, yes. I agree. But that is many Believers' argument.

Who said He was?

He sure hasn't done much to show otherwise in the last 2,000 some-odd years.

When you use your rediculous atheist logic.

I am subject to the same rules of logic as you are. Stop that.

[sitters]

Oh yeah, on the theory of natural selection, what animal did you come from?

Start by the big bang and quantum technology.
And maybe you come to the earth after 10 billion years.
Then 1 billion year of evolution on earth , and maybe you find your animal.

And intelligent animals don't like go death, and religions are born.

[ultimus666]

Of course it doesn't, you stupid athiest. God works in mysterious ways, unbeknownst to mortals. They're even MORE unbeknownst to athiests, agnostics, and people who aren't the right religion. Now shut the fuck up.

Thank you. Your one of the only ones who make sence. I don't care if you worship a different god or anything. But atheists piss me off. There saying everyones an idiot except for themselves.

And i don't think i've seen that episode of futurama. But if it is from futurama then they're right.

[FATAL]

You know that Rusty was being sarcastic, right?

[eX_Do0mY]

Ok. Seeing that I have a pretty good idea of what the picture the puzzle displays is supposed to look like, the pieces simply don't fit together, and some seem to be missing.

God will give you the pieces and help you fit them when the time gomes.

No, I don't. I have been under the impression that Logic is the same for everyone. 2 + 2 = 4, does it not?

Logic is the same, to a point. Other approach it differently.

God knew he would, however. He knew that Satan would terrorize his so adored human creations. He knew that Satan would cause them great pain. But, he created Satan anyway.

Looking at the big picture, that still doesn't make sense. Satan tempted man to sin, via the Serpent. There shouldn't be any testing involved. God told Adam and Eve what not to do. Agreeing that God planned on Satan's rebellion, he specifically planned that Adam and Eve would rebel as well.

I am really not seeing when "Free Will" makes its appearance here.

Are you blind? Sure, God knew it was going to happen. Free will comes into place when God lets Satan rebel, but God retaliates by casting Satan into Hell. Adam and Eve didn't rebel. Satan manipulated Eve to eat the apple.

It was a typo; it should be Secede. I meant concede anyway. Don't be a smartass.

My bad then. I didn't know.



Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

"Blameless" or not, that does not fit into the rules of being saved.

Definition of sin:

sin1 (sĭn)
n.
A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.
Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Can a child disobey God intentionally? No. Therefore, they do not have the ability to sin. Can you expect a child to believe in God? No, they're not mature enough. Because they do not have the ability to sin, they stay within the body of the Lord.

Says the Bible, and in this scenario, that doesn't hold any water. Satan can mimic anything God can, aside from true baptism. So who says that he didn't influence the scribes that wrote the New Testament to claim that he never sinned?

That would be idiotic. That means God would be lying, and perfect beings don't lie.

But you said yourself that the Old Testament is not applicable anymore.

So I will ask again, where does the Bible give specific rules to follow?

Here's an example from the book of Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

This speaks that women should dress modestly, and not have their nose high above everyone elses, or not wear fancy things like jewelry.


You are saying that EVERY misinterpretation of the bible is caused by Satan's influence. I will ask again, what if teachings are "twisted" by pure human err?

God states that you should inquire your preacher regularly, if he preaches something that conflicts with the Word.

Satan can take away someone's Free Will? Examples please?

Judas gave up Jesus for a small satchel of silver pieces. Desire of money without any need is an image of Satan.

No. Not Webster. Webster was not just some dude that said, "Umm.. Well, this word means this, and that word means that." These are accepted definitions of words by everyone. "True Superstition" is a massive oxymoron.

It sure works for me *thumbs*

According to your religion.

But my religion is true, but it isn't according to your logic.

To strengthen his faith in God.

If God did things like that to everyone, there would be no need for faith.

The point is, it doesn't matter how much faith, nor how hard you pray, you will get the same results. The reason being, the Law of Probability is the same for everyone; believers and non-believers alike.

Right. But God can make exceptions for those who need it. A person rolling a dice isn't going to need it.

No, not "sure." If God exherts his will without the need for one of his believers praying for it, then we do not truly have free will.

This hints that we have free will, to a degree, just like the angels.

If he did not want them to suffer, he could have either
Let them die before they began to suffer in the first place, or
Not have allowed his believers to contract such diseases in the first place

Here comes that degree of free will. God leaves up some decisions to man.

No, no, no. In this case, it is the complete opposite. Because the media wants people to believe in God. You ONLY hear about the miracle cases. The people who die do not get their side of the story.

But than again, the media doesn't want to spread the Word of God openly. You don't hear of the work of God on CNN do you? It's because non-believers will become offended, and the networks will have to administer censorship, or not bring up the subject period. It's like the girl that someone posted about on here not too long ago, that was so successful and was modest enough to say that she owed it all go God. The board of education administed censorship.

You are assuming that all of the people who die are people that have prayed. What about those who are non-believers? According to your previous arguments, God tends to give these people another chance to find him (much like the highschool shooting scenario that I started this thread with).

Sure, why not?

The point is, it doesn't matter how much faith, nor how hard you pray, you will get the same results. The reason being, the death-to-life ratio is the same for everyone for any disease; believers and non-believers alike.

God balances this out with reasoning. God knows whether you have hope or not, and he may spare you accordingly. His believers are in Him, and therefore can be taken at any time, or left on the Earth for as long as God wants them to.

I follow the same rules of Logic that your god has set forth upon creating this universe. There is no such thing as "Athiest Logic".

Atheist logic says "God doesn't exist, so this, this, and this can't happen!" *wacky*

The point is, it doesn't matter how much faith, nor how hard you pray, you will get the same results. The reason being, the death-to-life ratio is the same for everyone for any disease; believers and non-believers alike.

God balances this out with reasoning. God knows whether you have hope or not, and he may spare you accordingly. His believers are in Him, and therefore can be taken at any time, or left on the Earth for as long as God wants them to.

God should be able to account for the things that men may misinterpret, being Omniscient and all. Yes, the world would be Perfect. Why would God not want anything more than that?

The serpent Eve encountered ruined that for us, and God.

Their prayers may not be to live, though! No amount of prayer will regenerate a missing limb, no amount of prayer will cure a person with Down's Syndrome.

No, but those prayers will inspire God to inspire man on a cure for Down Syndrome or a method for recovering missing limbs.

Jesus was not ambiguous when he said,

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Matthew 17:20 For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Jesus isn't going to give you a Ferrari, or move your house over an oil field because you ask him.

According to Jesus' word, and Jesus being the son/incarnated mortal form of God, and God being Omnipotent, God should have no problem with performing these requests.

Sure, when you have God in your life, you don't ask for anything rediculous.

Oh, yes. I agree. But that is many Believers' argument.

I know.

He sure hasn't done much to show otherwise in the last 2,000 some-odd years.

When you don't have Him in your life, you're in the darkness, in other words, you don't "see" Him. In other words, he doesn't obviously help you.

I am subject to the same rules of logic as you are. Stop that.

lol, I just thought the way that was typed was funny.

[FATAL]

I'd like to quote the posts me and sigma made, but that would clog things too much.

Would you be so kind to answer them?
Remember, in a debate you don't get points for ignoring other people's words.


This hints that we have free will, to a degree, just like the angels.
First we have free will, then only partially? Which one shall we stick to?
God balances this out with reasoning. God knows whether you have hope or not, and he may spare you accordingly. His believers are in Him, and therefore can be taken at any time, or left on the Earth for as long as God wants them to.
When it comes to people surviving in the accidents, all that matters are the laws of physics, and nothing else. Never has a man observed god intervening with anything. Even though people say that it's a miracle that they were saved, it doesn't mean that god helped them, but that they were in a condition that allowed their bodies to continue to function. Or perhaps god thought about physics since the beginning, and made them to suit his will: "after a few thousand years, this person must not die from falling off a balcony, I'll just lower the force of gravity a bit so he may survive"

If he was so precise, however, then why was he slacking with other things? Saying his point clearly so that there would be no question? I have a sneaking suspicion...
No, but those prayers will inspire God to inspire man on a cure for Down Syndrome or a method for recovering missing limbs.
We agree that god knows, sees, and can do everything. Wouldn't praying be like telling god how to do his job? God surely knows what the person's condition is, and how does he think. Why does he need to pray god, if god knows he's in need and faithful?
When you don't have Him in your life, you're in the darkness, in other words, you don't "see" Him. In other words, he doesn't obviously help you.
I'm alive, I'm very well. I think he doesn't exist. does this mean he doesn't help me either? If so, what does his help create? What do you have that I don't? Faith is a poor answer, as other religions have faith just as much as christianity, so god must have blessed those people with different faith for a different god(s). This wouldn't make sense, though. God making people believe in satan's incarnations.

[Sigma]

Atheist logic says "God doesn't exist, so this, this, and this can't happen!"

You're confused. The statement should be reversed to read, "this and this do not happen (or cannot happen), therefore God doesn't exist." As Aliotroph? stated earlier, belief in God doesn't explain anything that the Big Bang theory does not-- or alternatively, it is just as reasonable to believe there was a titanic sum of matter that just happened to exist, that later managed to explode (a poor synopsis of the theory, but will work well enough for this statement) as a God who just happened to exist and created everything. Where did God come from (what created God? God? What created that God? God?)? At least the Big Bang theory has a few definitive answers based on empirical, observed instances/data-- God is purely imaginary and based on faith; a belief someone holds despite having no evidence (in many instances evidence against it) supporting a belief in such an object.

Are you blind? Sure, God knew it was going to happen. Free will comes into place when God lets Satan rebel, but God retaliates by casting Satan into Hell. Adam and Eve didn't rebel. Satan manipulated Eve to eat the apple.

This is the same as proclaiming Doom made Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murder fellow classmates or because I instructed you to kill ten people and you did it, I am directly responsible.

The serpent Eve encountered ruined that for us, and God.

Yes, personal responsibility doesn't mean much in Christianity. Especially when considering the fact that because Christians will go to heaven as long as they repent, they fail to have shame when orchestrating huge genocides on people. Whether those specific genocides be against the Judaics, Aztecs or Shinto pilgrims.

That would be idiotic. That means God would be lying, and perfect beings don't lie.

You cannot assume this however. Your single defense here is faith, which I'm afraid has no value to anyone or anything other than you. It is completely personal and therefore has no weight in a debate. If I believe Jesus Christ was a Satan incarnate, and that is what I put my faith in, I counter your belief. And here we have grounds for a fight or war.

How do you know God (Jesus Christ) is not, in fact, Satan? That would at least explain all of the (seemingly deliberate) mistakes. Satan wouldn't make everyone evil, as that would be like if everyone were good. By making half good and half evil, he has a much greater drama to sit back and watch.

I define suffering as the period of time between the consciousness of a desire and its fulfillment. Due to the fact everyone holds slightly different and unique beliefs (it is impossible for two or more people to believe the exact same things, which proves there is no such thing as a true word of God, nor can there ever be), each person is working toward different goals. Because everyone cannot fill their goals when other people are working against them, suffering exists. Due to the fact God wants all of mankind to go to heaven and know the true path, and being aware this is impossible, God must suffer. If God did not suffer despite this fact, God would not be all-loving. A suffering God cannot be all-loving either because he has the ability to amend this suffering and mankind's suffering and even Satan's suffering with no consequence (he is God afterall) and delibrately chooses not to. Because God suffers he cannot be seen as perfect. True perfection cannot possibly exist. Like God, it makes absolutely no logical sense.

In other words:

Being an all-loving God while granting complete free-will is a negation of one or the other. Like the stone metaphor, the answer is the same regardless of how you consider the equation and the answer you recieve is deleterious to the belief in God.

I, personally, find it to be disgusting to think that God knows exactly how someone will be born into this world, live their life and die. While during the entire process-- never doing anything about it. I'm afraid this defines nothing more or less than apathy. If God is apathetic, what is the point of not sharing the same apathetic attitude toward God? This is reasoning to either believe God does not exist (or replace him with the Big Bang) or be atheist. Or, at the very least, diminish the effect that God has on our current world to the extent Nomad spoke of.

Can a child disobey God intentionally? No. Therefore, they do not have the ability to sin. Can you expect a child to believe in God? No, they're not mature enough. Because they do not have the ability to sin, they stay within the body of the Lord.

Children are born into Atheism. Religion is taught or learned like anything else. A child who was born and raised in the middle of nowhere and had no interaction with Christians could not possibly practice Christianity or believe in Christ. This does not necessarily mean the child will not grow up to believe in some sort of God(s) or being (though it couldn't possibly be the same God, at the most-- somewhat similar) but even then, it wouldn't be based on anything more than what the imagination is capable of and is therefore not real, knowable or natural.

But my religion is true, but it isn't according to your logic.

I define truth as something most (ninety-nine percent; save one-percent to account for people suffering from psychosis or other mental disorders) can observe, know or test according to empirical probabilities or statistics. The truth, in relation to some things, is always changing as things evolve, disappear, appear or change. This definition is proper and adequate. Defining truth as any other way (especially, a personal definition of it) is dangerous as it justifies and/or allows for a fight or war to manifest over who has the correct and "true" denotation of the word.

Judas gave up Jesus for a small satchel of silver pieces.

God gave up Lucifer for mankind. ;)

Here comes that degree of free will. God leaves up some decisions to man.

Which happens to be a direct negation of his "all-loving" stance as I pointed out earlier.

Thank you. Your one of the only ones who make sence. I don't care if you worship a different god or anything. But atheists piss me off. There saying everyones an idiot except for themselves.

And i don't think i've seen that episode of futurama. But if it is from futurama then they're right

Indeed. As FATAL stated, I am quite sure rustyslacker was being sarcastic. What kind of Christian are you anyway? I fail to believe in either God or Satan, which is, to me that is, slightly more "righteous" than outright advertising the number of the beast (666) in your name. ;)

When you use your rediculous atheist logic.

Define Atheist logic. Scientific logic? ;)

Don't answer that. A trap will spring upon you.

Maybe instead of looking at the Bible as cronalogical fact, It needs to be looked at as puzzle and the pathway to solving that puzzle is to first accept that there is more to life than this life.

That would be acceptable if that proposal did not justify Christians, Jews or Islams to kill each other while failing to acknowledge definitive consequences because they have an after-life and God desensitizing or even justifying them. (You specifically said the Bible, but I took the liberty of translating that to other, similar faiths to account adequately for the proposal Nomad made.)

[Nomad]

I am going to only touch on the things that Sigma has not already answered to.

That would be idiotic. That means God would be lying, and perfect beings don't lie.

Satan is an angel. Satan is thusly a perfect being. Satan lies. Therefore perfect beings do lie.

And nowhere, however, did I propose that God was lying. Consider, for a moment, that if the New Testament was not influenced/written by God, but rather Satan. Then we are left with a dilemma, are we not? You claim that your "Church of the Lord" is untainted, but you can not possibly be absolutely sure about that.

Here's an example from the book of Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

This speaks that women should dress modestly, and not have their nose high above everyone elses, or not wear fancy things like jewelry.

That does not describe specific rules for worship. That just says that women should dress modestly, and etc. It does not say, "In church, women should..."

And again I shall bring the misogyny subject. Why are women forced to dress modestly, but there are no rules for men's "dress code" according to the Lord? It's OK for me to walk around in the buff, but not for women?

Judas gave up Jesus for a small satchel of silver pieces. Desire of money without any need is an image of Satan.

What about the lost Lost Gospel of Judas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas), which describes Jesus instructing Judas to betray him?

You may claim that this is just something that Satan cooked up to fool believers, but consider for a moment that if Judas hadn't sold Jesus off, he may not have been found, and wouldn't have been crucified? I don't care what your opinion is here--I want you to consider that this is a possibility. Would it not be reasonable then for Jesus to then instruct Judas to sell him off, to fulfil the prophecy?

Now, consider the fact that pretty much EVERYONE knew where Jesus was anyway. ANY one of those people could have given him away, easily. But it was in the prophecy that the Christman would be betrayed by a close friend--so consider that perhaps the Jesus that we all know and love (ha!) was in fact Satan, and instructed Judas to give him away for the simple goal of fulfilling the prophecy.

If God did things like that to everyone, there would be no need for faith.

Right. But God can make exceptions for those who need it. A person rolling a dice isn't going to need it.

[...]

God balances this out with reasoning. God knows whether you have hope or not, and he may spare you accordingly. His believers are in Him, and therefore can be taken at any time, or left on the Earth for as long as God wants them to.

[...]

No, but those prayers will inspire God to inspire man on a cure for Down Syndrome or a method for recovering missing limbs.

[...]

Jesus isn't going to give you a Ferrari, or move your house over an oil field because you ask him.

Again, you are missing the point. I don't expect any "Good" follower to pray for a Ferrari. If that is truly what a believer expects from Jesus, then they are probably not true believers, and surely don't deserve a Ferarri in the first place.

However, let's have another example.

Let's say, we have a prayer circle. We'll fill the circle with believers from whatever your church you go to, and for the sake of this argument, let's say that they are on the complete true path, and follow the One True Word of God.

This prayer circle's intention is to pray to God, and ask, Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

According to Matthew 18:19
Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So with a whole group of dedicated believers, who follow the True word of God, asking for a very honest, good intentioned request, there should be no reason that God would not fulfil this prayer, should there not?

Sure, why not?

Way to answer the question. Listen to what I am portraying again. The death-to-life ratio is exactly the same for believers and non-believers for any disease. That means, there is an equal amount of believers who die from diseases as there are of non-believers who die from the same diseases, as is there the same amount of believers that survive the same diseases as there are non-believers that survive the same diseases.

In smaller words: prayer does not change the probability of surviving or dying from a disease. Period.

The same goes for amputees, those stricken with Down's syndrome, and those left paralyzed for life due to spinal cord injuries. Only their odds of having the prayer answered to have their maladies cured are much more slim. Or, in other words, the odds are nonexistant.

And God "inspiring" scientists to develop ways to cure or otherwise assist with these problems is completely missing the point.

The prayer is not to "inspire" scientists to develop ways to cure or otherwise assist with these diseases. The prayer is to cure these diseases, which obviously God does not do. Which is against what Jesus said in the bible several times.

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Ask, and it will be given to you. etc.

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you."

Here Jesus clearly says that a believer with even a small amount of faith can move a mountain just by asking. Nothing will be impossible to you.

Jesus then says something similar in another passage,

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

If you believe, you will recieve whatever you ask for in prayer.

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Sounds pretty straightforward and inambiguous to me.

12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Again, sounds pretty straightforward and inambiguous to me.

The point is, Jesus is not saying any of this in metaphor. He is stating clearly that anything that is asked in his name, he will do. Yet, he clearly does not deliver on this.

When you consider that ZERO medical related prayers are answered, than none are answered, because Jesus promises to do whatever is asked of him. Either he is able to answer all of them, or does not answer any of them. There is no middle ground.

God balances this out with reasoning. God knows whether you have hope or not, and he may spare you accordingly. His believers are in Him, and therefore can be taken at any time, or left on the Earth for as long as God wants them to.

A couple things here. There is no special reasoning if the death-to-life ratio of any given disease is exactly the same with believers as it is for non-believers. The probability of dying or surviving is exactly the same whether you believe in God and Jesus or not. The results are the same, whether you pray or not.

Secondly, if God chooses exactly how and when people are born and die, what is there in the way of free will for us? This also brings up whether abortions and suicides are wrong or not. Since God has chosen for a particular child to have a very short life, not performing abortions would be interfering with God's will, would it not? And since God has already chosen when we all should die, those who commit suicide shouldn't be considered sinful, if that is the time that God has chosen for them to die, shouldn't they?

The serpent Eve encountered ruined that for us, and God.

It's very demonstrative of an All-Loving God to condemn us for what our ancestors did. I know that I myself didn't ask Adam or Eve to partake of that fruit. It's not MY fault they did, so why do I have to suffer?

Sure, when you have God in your life, you don't ask for anything rediculous.

Asking for something concrete is not always asking for something ridiculous. Refer to my prayer circle proposition.

[sitters]

My Carbon molecules are born in a star, after an while I give them back.

[Looney]

Nomad, in all of this you make it sound as if God is here to serve man. Christians believe that man is here to serve God. Why should God grant a prayer to win the lottery or get a new car... God is not our toy chest and to assume he is, is a blaintent miss use of prayer. As Christians we pray, but as Christians we also understand that the answer may not always be yes.... Follow? Just because the answer was NO doesn't mean the prayer was not aswered. Just because a prayer was not answered in your time dosen't mean it wasn't answered in Gods time.

God will let us (Humans) make mistakes to humble us.
God will not fix what man has fucked up.

You talk about how churches have done this and that... It is stated in the Bible that there will be large falling away from the church in the last days. In my opinion this is what we are all witnessing today. This opens the door for Satan to use non believers to take over the earth. In time churches will be outlawed Christians will be killed because of their belief in God and Christ. This is why God states he will cut those days short, for if too much time passes no one would be saved.

Oh yes and BTW you totaly missed my point in my last post. You are the one that dosen't believe in Life after Death, so therefore you don't have the first puzzle piece. So yes, for you, pieces are missing and may always elude you. God owes you nothing. You owe God your every breath.

I'm sure you will find fault with everthing I just said here, it is your pattern. Just understand that your pattern of thought was coined in 1840's by Thomas H. Huxley and is not new. By deffinition as being agnostic you deny the first piece of the puzzle. Open your mind up to the possability first that there may be Life after death and more of this may or may not make sence to you. For now, I'm done playing this circle jurk party.

[Shaniac]

Alright guys this fight is unfair. The Atheist/Science side is fighting you guys in your own terms. You are not fighting the Atheist/Science side in their terms.

[Looney]

Alright guys this fight is unfair. The Atheist/Science side is fighting you guys in your own terms. You are not fighting the Atheist/Science side in their terms.

I refuse to stoop to the level of denying my God for the sake of your belief to do so would be to deny my own belief. Sorry it will never happen.

[sitters]

Matter can be transformed in energy, and energy in matter.

[Looney]

Start by the big bang and quantum technology.
And maybe you come to the earth after 10 billion years.
Then 1 billion year of evolution on earth , and maybe you find your animal.

And intelligent animals don't like go death, and religions are born.

My Carbon molecules are born in a star, after an while I give them back.

Matter can be transformed in energy, and energy in matter.

Pointless statments like these are not needed here. They help neither side of this debate. If you have a point spit it out.

[sitters]

That are not Pointless statements,

IMO, all religions are created by humans myself.
What humans in the past not understand, they put an higher force to it.
People don't wand to die, and to make this easier,
they create an life for ever, after this life.

We are just biologic machines that can evolve, and fighting for surviving and reproduce.
We have an little bit more intellect then other animals, but for 60 % we follow our instinct's, programmed by nature.
So we are just an part of nature, nothing more or less.

500 million years ago we where just small mammal's.
Why do you think when you walk you swing with your arms ?
It is coming from the time that you walk on four legs.

Life is easier when you think there is an higher force above you.

[Azriel]

That are not Pointless statements,

IMO, all religions are created by humans myself.
What humans in the past not understand, they put an higher force to it.
People don't wand to die, and to make this easier,
they create an life for ever, after this life.

We are just biologic machines that can evolve, and fighting for surviving and reproduce.
We have an little bit more intellect then other animals, but for 60 % we follow our instinct's, programmed by nature.
So we are just an part of nature, nothing more or less.

500 million years ago we where just small mammal's.
Why do you think when you walk you swing with your arms ?
It is coming from the time that you walk on four legs.

Life is easier when you think there is an higher force above you.
Agreed. Imo, there's no life after this one. When you die, it's over.
Religion was created by ignorance.

Many of nature's behaviour, like thunder and lightning are scientifically (?) explained.
Today nobody will think there's a higher force behind thunder and lightning.
In the past, they didn't know what the hell that was so they thought they pissed off some kind of god.

[Looney]

And I totaly disagree, It is all a matter of opinon. Telling me that I evoled from ocean goo is not a strong agument when It is only theroy and not proven fact. It is no more than conjecture and speculation. The same thing you claim Christianity is. Again it is a humanistic view that is held by many, I just happen to not be one of them. This view is also mentioned in the Bible that will be prevelent in the last days... So you still have not convinced me that you are right and I'm wrong. This is an argument that will go on till Christs return and will not be solved until that day. Why is that you can't understand that this will all stop when we agree to disagree.

And in that last statment you suggest that I think God is behind all thunder.... How short sided of you to even propose such a thing. That shows me that you have perconsieved Ideas about what and why Chritains believe what they do. Take some time to educate yourself before making such assumtions. This is not 106 AD, This is the year 2006. That argument it pointless and ignorant on your part.

[Nomad]

Nomad, in all of this you make it sound as if God is here to serve man. Christians believe that man is here to serve God. Why should God grant a prayer to win the lottery or get a new car... God is not our toy chest and to assume he is, is a blaintent miss use of prayer. As Christians we pray, but as Christians we also understand that the answer may not always be yes.... Follow? Just because the answer was NO doesn't mean the prayer was not aswered. Just because a prayer was not answered in your time dosen't mean it wasn't answered in Gods time.

NOWHERE did I say that God will grant us to win the lottery or a car. In fact, I specifically said the opposite:

I don't expect any "Good" follower to pray for a Ferrari. If that is truly what a believer expects from Jesus, then they are probably not true believers, and surely don't deserve a Ferarri in the first place.

I'm not stupid. Even in the scenario where We serve God, asking to have a disease wiped off the face of the earth is nothing ridiculous. That is much like a slave asking, "Please, no more beatings." Is that really a terrible thing to ask? Is it selfish to ask for that? If God is All-Loving, how can he say no to that?

I can see it now, "NO! Your ancestors, six thousand years ago, defied me! For that YOU have to suffer!"

That doesn't make any sense at all.

God will let us (Humans) make mistakes to humble us.
God will not fix what man has fucked up.

I can understand that. But where is the definite line between pure human error, and the influence of Satan? In either case, God doesn't seem to do much to help.

You talk about how churches have done this and that... It is stated in the Bible that there will be large falling away from the church in the last days. In my opinion this is what we are all witnessing today. This opens the door for Satan to use non believers to take over the earth. In time churches will be outlawed Christians will be killed because of their belief in God and Christ. This is why God states he will cut those days short, for if too much time passes no one would be saved.

Where have I talked about "The church does this, and the church did that, etc."? I have not even mentioned the horrible, brutal crusades of the midieval period (BELIEVE IN MY GOD, OR ELSE!!!), or the vile Spanish inquisition that takes a strong stomach to even read about, or the near-genocide that protestant and catholic settlers to the New World (The Americas) pulled on the native peoples.

Looney, you seem to have this insane preconception that all athiests are horrible, barbaric beings. I will refer back to a post I posted way back in the first day of this thread, in response to a passage that you posted.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Because I do not believe in god, I am selfish? Because I do not believe in god, I intend to steal my neighbors' goods? Because I do not believe in god I am self centered? Because I do not believe in god I am full of myself? Because I do not believe in god, I purposly go out and blaspheme, for shits and giggles? Because I do not believe in god, I do not respect my parents? Because I do not believe in god, I do not love and cherish the things that are given to me?

Bullshit.


2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Because I do not believe in god, I am incapable of love? Because I do not believe in god, I am incapable of keeping promises? Because I do not believe in god, I lie and blame others for my own mistakes? Because I do not believe in god, I am unable to show self restraing; or I do not control my sexual drive? Because I do not believe in god, I am wrathful? Because I do not believe in god, I hate anything that is good?

Bullshit.


2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;


2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Because I do not believe in god, I am unable to keep someone's trust? I don't even know what "heady" is supposed to mean. Because I do not believe in god, I am haughty? Because I do not believe in god, I believe I am god?

Bullshit.

I am not saying that an athiest, or the bringers of the apocalypse, or whatever you are proposing have to be ALL of these things as eX_DoOmY had assumed in a later post. I am saying that I myself am hardly ONE of these things. I am a perfectly intelligent human being, able to make decisions and rationalizations on my own. Which means, I am able to establish what is right or wrong.

Which includes: killing = bad. Any idiot can figure that out. Assuming that religion is "abolished" by my proposal, that does not mean that I intend on killing anyone for their beliefs. I am not proposing a ban on individual belief. Do you really need to go to a specific place (i.e. church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.) to worship a god that created everything you stand on? Why can you not do this in your own home?

In a country that states in the first rule of its bill of human rights, the freedom of religion, I sure do have religion shoved down my throat everywhere I go, and I shouldn't. I should be able to go out and about and not have people gawk at me for the "demons" I have on my band t-shirts. I should be able to go to my courthouse, and not have the Ten Commandments shoved in my face. The last five commandments, I don't care. But the first five are specific Judaistic and Christian commandments, and my government should not have anything to do with any religion.

I don't care if this country was founded by believers in God. Their religion should have no effect on my life, if I so choose not to believe what they believe.

And by the way, most of our Forefathers of the country were Deists. Look it up.

Oh yes and BTW you totaly missed my point in my last post. You are the one that dosen't believe in Life after Death, so therefore you don't have the first puzzle piece. So yes, for you, pieces are missing and may always elude you. God owes you nothing. You owe God your every breath.

I refer you back to my first statement in this post.

I'm sure you will find fault with everthing I just said here, it is your pattern. Just understand that your pattern of thought was coined in 1840's by Thomas H. Huxley and is not new. By deffinition as being agnostic you deny the first piece of the puzzle. Open your mind up to the possability first that there may be Life after death and more of this may or may not make sence to you. For now, I'm done playing this circle jurk party.

Sure, fine. I'm sure Thomas Huxley was the only person to ever question the existance of God.

As for the circle jerk, that's fine. It's pleasant of you to be singling me out for all of your arguments, I might add. I'm not the only person here putting up an argument.

[ultimus666]

You know that Rusty was being sarcastic, right?
How the fuck was he being sarcastic? If he was i can't tell because i can't hear the way he types.And if a perfect being lies, they wouldn't be perfect, would they? Satan is not a perfect being.Now all you atheist bastards go kill yourselves.

[ace]

Lawl, while reading this entire thread was a waste of a half-day's time, I've gotten a good chuckle out of the constant bickering back and forth with the "I'm right, you're wrong" on either side. But at least most people are trying to put reason and logic into their side of the debate, which is a very good thing. So this discussion is actually going surpisingly well. See, politics/religion are good to discuss, no? ;)

I'm too hungry for lunch at the moment so I won't throw anything in right now, however.


Also, Ultimus666, the point of a debate is not to belittle the other side, use language (which I am not uncomfortable with but it isn't at all necessary) for no reason and tell the other side they need to die. You keep saying "shut the fuck up, I'm entitled to my opinion, stop trying to change my position," but GUESS WHAT? That is how a debate works. To state your opinion and BACK IT UP WITH REASON, then let the other side give their view, and then respond in the same matter. You have done none of the aforementioned things. If you don't like the argument then take the high road, and leave this thread be. I look forward to your response to this post, which will more likely than not be "STFU"-ish.

And I am utterly shocked and repulsed that nobody pointed this out to him yet. Shame on you folks. :p

[sitters]

I am not forcing people to mine opinion.
People must think, do and believe where they are happy in.
I have respect for other peoples opinion, I am only ask the same.

But it is an scientific fact that we are evolve from small mammal's.
They can find it in our genes, the key of live is coming closer and closer by the genetics.
The evolution is an proven fact, also that we are just an biologic engine.

Our brain is the computer, and there is no spirit or something.
When our computer is mail function, our body and thinking is malfunction.

It is just simple, no brain, no consciousness's.
Going death is just recycling of the building blocks on this planets.

When you pull the plug, of your computer the monitor go's black.
When you pull the plug of your life, then the same things happen, only you cant switch the power back on.

In about 50-100 year or something they can make synthetic life, with an synthetic brain.
Lets say this synthetic human, feels, walks and thinks and has the same emotions as humans and they survive the humans.
Then for this life-form we are the gods over 10000 year, and they speak beautiful story's about us.
Same as I tell an story to an friend, after ten people I hear my story back.
I am surprised, it was not my story.
The bible is written by humans, I think that says enough.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Our building blocks are formed by an star, you need nuclear fusion ( high temp and pressure ) to make carbon and metal molecules, not an higher force in the form of god.

Or you must call nature god, and when you call nature god you must look at cosmic level and not on earth level.

For nature it is not imported, if earth is there or not, if this solar system vaporise, it is on cosmic level not more then an eye blink ( maybe even less ).

The sun has now still for +- 4 billion year fuel, then it is going to be an red giant.
Then the earth is going to be swallow by the sun and life stops on this planet.

[Nomad]

How the fuck was he being sarcastic? If he was i can't tell because i can't hear the way he types.And if a perfect being lies, they wouldn't be perfect, would they? Satan is not a perfect being.Now all you atheist bastards go kill yourselves.

Sarcasm = Verbal Irony. In other words, saying one thing, and meaning the opposite. If you pay attention to his word choice, it becomes very obvious he is being sarcastic. You seem to be the only person here who doesn't see that.

Angels are perfect. Satan is an angel. Thus Satan is Perfect. However, Satan lies. A being cannot be perfect without the ability to do what they choose, according to eX_DoOmY. Therefore, perfect beings can lie. However, they can choose not to. ;)

Notice, ultimus, how you are the ONLY person in this thread "talking trash". The rest of us may be arguing, but none of the rest of us are telling each other to "Fuck off" or "Shut the fuck up" or "Go kill yourself."

However, I will tell you to shut up unless you have something useful to say. You are not adding to the conversation in any way by being an asshole. I am not telling you you aren't allowed to participate, just to change your attitude.

And I am utterly shocked and repulsed that nobody pointed this out to him yet. Shame on you folks. :p

I figured through being nice to him, he'd get the picture, but I guess not.

The sun has now still for +- 4 billion year fuel, then it is going to be an red giant.
Then the earth is going to be swallow by the sun and life stops on this planet.

The atmosphere of Earth will boil away long before the sun hardly begins going nova. We will die long before it gets that far, I'm sure.

[sitters]

The atmosphere of Earth will boil away long before the sun hardly begins going nova. We will die long before it gets that far, I'm sure.


I agree of the atmosphere, but the sun is to small to going to be an nova, he is going to be an red giant, and then probable an pulsar.

Yes life will die long before it gets that far, you right.

[ultimus666]

Lawl, while reading this entire thread was a waste of a half-day's time, I've gotten a good chuckle out of the constant bickering back and forth with the "I'm right, you're wrong" on either side. But at least most people are trying to put reason and logic into their side of the debate, which is a very good thing. So this discussion is actually going surpisingly well. See, politics/religion are good to discuss, no? ;)

I'm too hungry for lunch at the moment so I won't throw anything in right now, however.


Also, Ultimus666, the point of a debate is not to belittle the other side, use language (which I am not uncomfortable with but it isn't at all necessary) for no reason and tell the other side they need to die. You keep saying "shut the fuck up, I'm entitled to my opinion, stop trying to change my position," but GUESS WHAT? That is how a debate works. To state your opinion and BACK IT UP WITH REASON, then let the other side give their view, and then respond in the same matter. You have done none of the aforementioned things. If you don't like the argument then take the high road, and leave this thread be. I look forward to your response to this post, which will more likely than not be "STFU"-ish.

And I am utterly shocked and repulsed that nobody pointed this out to him yet. Shame on you folks. :p
OK, I'm sorry. It's just that atheists piss me off so damn much. Like i said before they think everyone is an idiot except for them and i am sensitive,though not the kind were you cry if your called stupid, i get very angry when someone insults my or anyone elses religion.

[eX_Do0mY]

NOWHERE did I say that God will grant us to win the lottery or a car. In fact, I specifically said the opposite:

Correct.

Angels are perfect. Satan is an angel. Thus Satan is Perfect. However, Satan lies. A being cannot be perfect without the ability to do what they choose, according to eX_DoOmY. Therefore, perfect beings can lie. However, they can choose not to. ;)

That's what I meant to say.


I'm not stupid. Even in the scenario where We serve God, asking to have a disease wiped off the face of the earth is nothing ridiculous. That is much like a slave asking, "Please, no more beatings." Is that really a terrible thing to ask? Is it selfish to ask for that? If God is All-Loving, how can he say no to that?

Remember, there is the concept of punishment, and karma. God may have put diseases on Earth for man's punishment. Remember, we serve God. He doesn't HAVE to give us whatever we ask for. He has the right to say no.

I can see it now, "NO! Your ancestors, six thousand years ago, defied me! For that YOU have to suffer!"

Punishment. God doesn't want us to screw up again already worse than we have. Planting the root of evil in the world, doesn't get any worse than this.

I can understand that. But where is the definite line between pure human error, and the influence of Satan? In either case, God doesn't seem to do much to help.

Yes, He does. I've already pointed out to you that the Bible tells church members to inquire their preachers regularly, and discuss topics in question, and if appropriate, to politely correct them.

Where have I talked about "The church does this, and the church did that, etc."? I have not even mentioned the horrible, brutal crusades of the midieval period (BELIEVE IN MY GOD, OR ELSE!!!), or the vile Spanish inquisition that takes a strong stomach to even read about, or the near-genocide that protestant and catholic settlers to the New World (The Americas) pulled on the native peoples.

The crusades were for the Christians to reclaim the Holy Land. They had every right to take back their land. And you really believe that the settlement of the Americas was caused by the Christian settlers? Sure, it may have been, but the pilgrims and such made peace with the native Americans.

I am not saying that an athiest, or the bringers of the apocalypse, or whatever you are proposing have to be ALL of these things as eX_DoOmY had assumed in a later post. I am saying that I myself am hardly ONE of these things. I am a perfectly intelligent human being, able to make decisions and rationalizations on my own. Which means, I am able to establish what is right or wrong.

You are unholy. Don't deny that.

Which includes: killing = bad. Any idiot can figure that out. Assuming that religion is "abolished" by my proposal, that does not mean that I intend on killing anyone for their beliefs. I am not proposing a ban on individual belief. Do you really need to go to a specific place (i.e. church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.) to worship a god that created everything you stand on? Why can you not do this in your own home?

No, you don't have to go to church. The Bible says to learn the Word, accept it, and be reborn into the Lord (baptised). Although, most people can't learn the Word on their own, that's why God brought about preachers. You have to have someone to spread the Word, and teach them about it.

In a country that states in the first rule of its bill of human rights, the freedom of religion, I sure do have religion shoved down my throat everywhere I go, and I shouldn't. I should be able to go out and about and not have people gawk at me for the "demons" I have on my band t-shirts. I should be able to go to my courthouse, and not have the Ten Commandments shoved in my face. The last five commandments, I don't care. But the first five are specific Judaistic and Christian commandments, and my government should not have anything to do with any religion.

You don't have to listen, or pay attention. And the Government doesn't say "Join this Religion." That's all the Government asks. And as for the people telling you about Religion, that goes under freedom of speech.

I don't care if this country was founded by believers in God. Their religion should have no effect on my life, if I so choose not to believe what they believe.

As for the circle jerk, that's fine. It's pleasant of you to be singling me out for all of your arguments, I might add. I'm not the only person here putting up an argument.

It's not they we're singling you out, it seems that way because you're the only one that's not posting pure BS, and you're the only one arguing reasonably. I'm kinda finished too, though. Now, let's all gang up on the muslims and buddhists. *xbones*

[Nomad]

It's not they we're singling you out, it seems that way because you're the only one that's not posting pure BS, and you're the only one arguing reasonably. I'm kinda finished too, though. Now, let's all gang up on the muslims and buddhists. *xbones*

Sigma (XIX IV VII XIII I) has been bringing up plenty of reasonable arguments, and most mine are rooted from ideas of his that I have seen elsewhere. You've ignored every post of his so far, from what I can see. ;)

[FATAL]

It's not they we're singling you out, it seems that way because you're the only one that's not posting pure BS, and you're the only one arguing reasonably. I'm kinda finished too, though. Now, let's all gang up on the muslims and buddhists. *xbones*
Yes, I'm intrested in hearing how me and Sigma are arguing unreasonably. I can't see it myself. Asking questions and requesting for clarification when the answers collide doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.

[eX_Do0mY]

Well, I don't know, maybe it's that I've read too many of Nomad's posts and not enough of everyone elses. I was just about to ask who Sigma is, and how do you get sigma out of the weird roman numerals?

[ace]

The numbers stand for letters of the alphabet.

XIX = 19 = S
IX = 9 = I
And so on.

Back on topic! ;)

[Doom-Dork]

The numbers stand for letters of the alphabet.

XIX = 19 = S
IX = 9 = I
And so on.


Ah! so thats it. And here is me, all this time thinking he was just a very old guy.

[rustyslacker]

Well, I don't know, maybe it's that I've read too many of Nomad's posts and not enough of everyone elses.
Or maybe you're just being a blind, illogical sheep.

I love the new avatar, Doom-Dork.

[eX_Do0mY]

The Lord is my shepherd, he will show me the light ;)

[rustyslacker]

The Lord is my shepherd, he will show me the light
Jeez. Sheep.

[ace]

Now, now, Rusty. By going down to name-calling you put your self to just slightly above Ultimus's level. Careful now, or I'll have to pull a red flag on you. ;)

[jetflock]

I think Jesus would drive a SAAB.

[rustyslacker]

I bet Jesus drives a Honda Civic

[Nomad]

Wow. This thread died quickly.

[ace]

You call 191 posts quickly? Pfft.

A religous discussion thread's fate will never be any different under any circumstances, methinks. Because eventually you start going in circles, and eventually one side gets tired of it and stops posting. You read this whole thread and you notice that topics repeat often, even when new ones were added. Sad but I don't think it could be prevented, unless Sigma happens to decide to write yet another mega ULTRA sized post and people decide to respond. Or unless someone else does the same with the same result o'course.

I would post my opinion, but it keeps swaying so rapidly at this point that now I'm just entirely unsure, unfortunately. Y'see, if I hadn't kept an open mind during all this debating this wouldn't be the case. So shame on you folks. :p

[Nomad]

You call 191 posts quickly? Pfft.

Haha, no. I just meant that things were scooting along at a pretty steady pace, and then BAM--I guess it's done now. >.>

A religous discussion thread's fate will never be any different under any circumstances, methinks. Because eventually you start going in circles, and eventually one side gets tired of it and stops posting. You read this whole thread and you notice that topics repeat often, even when new ones were added. Sad but I don't think it could be prevented, unless Sigma happens to decide to write yet another mega ULTRA sized post and people decide to respond. Or unless someone else does the same with the same result o'course.

I hope he does. He's an intelligent guy.

I would post my opinion, but it keeps swaying so rapidly at this point that now I'm just entirely unsure, unfortunately. Y'see, if I hadn't kept an open mind during all this debating this wouldn't be the case. So shame on you folks. :p

Don't blame us! Blame Satan!

[rustyslacker]

Don't blame us! Blame Satan!
I bet Satan drives a Humvee. :D

[Phoebus]

And what do you drive, Rusty? A moped? ;)

[Nomad]

Rusty doesn't drive. He's only---

TRANSMISSION TERMINATED!

[FATAL]

See, Rusty can edit your posts.

[rustyslacker]

And what do you drive, Rusty? A moped?
I happen to drive a roflcopter.

[ultimus666]

Now, now, Rusty. By going down to name-calling you put your self to just slightly above Ultimus's level. Careful now, or I'll have to pull a red flag on you. ;)
Yeah but i appologized!

And i drive a 2999 mustang with rocket launchers, a mini gun, flamethrowers, and a BFG!:D

[sitters]

I don't drive anything, I have an Teleporter. :)

[DooMAD]

Almost relevant, heh:

http://www.wondermark.com/comics/219.gif

[Phoebus]

http://www.mindlessgames.com/images/other/temp/roflcopter.gif

[Doom_Dude]

LOL@ROFL Copter avatar jobby

[Aliotroph?]

LOL Doomguy doesn't look like he's rofl-ing there. :D

[PumpkinSmasher]

http://www.mindlessgames.com/images/other/temp/roflcopter.gif
hahaha
Subliminal Message: PumpkinSmasher is 1337

[rustyslacker]

http://www.mindlessgames.com/images/other/temp/roflcopter.gif
*applause*

[jetflock]

http://adam-buxton.com/ad/wp-content/ANEWPOPE2SCRENDER.mp4

[Aliotroph?]

LOL What's the voice over taken from? It sounds very Douglas Adams or Dr. Who.

[Nomad]

Seems like it was probably from some SW novel audio tape. Pretty much pointless for this thread in either case.

[Aliotroph?]

I've always wondered what they keep in the basements of the Vatican. The Catholic Church is known for keeping all kinds of neat old books around that few others had at all. Makes you wonder if they've got whole libraries of stuff that's not on their approved reading list.

[Nomad]

What did that have to do with the Vatican? It's clearly something from StarWars...

[jetflock]

its obviously something stupid.lol. but yeah, the vatican has all kinds of nasty secrets. all kinds of great texts making christianity sound really like something you would want to believe in.
You guys should check out (its fiction) "Another Roadside Attraction" by Tom Robbins.

[Doom-Dork]

Moving back to Nomad's original post that religion should be abolished.
I dissagree with this statement. If you abolish religion you must also abolish free will. What should be abolished is the link between politics and religion.

[rustyslacker]

Do explain your logic behind abolishing free will with religion.

[Doom-Dork]

If I wish to worship a particular religious sect I do so at my own free will. I prefer not to worship anybody which I also do of my own free will. You will find that not many people are coerced into adopting a religion or into being an atheist, they do so of there own free will. So if you abolish religion you deny that person his or her free will to do so.

[Nomad]

You're reading too much into my post.

I meant that Religion should no longer be allowed to have any kind of influence on society anymore. That is what I mean by abolishing it. I shouldn't have to pay taxes for the tax breaks that churches get. Homosexuals should be allowed to get married, regardless of what intolerant bigot Christians believe. And like discussed in the "polygamy" thread, this act also has no rational base in being banned in our society. Either all religious holidays should be observed federally, or none of them should be.

Christianty, and to a lesser extent Judaism (and a bit of Islam), has a chokehold on this nation--on this world, and it is wrong. Your beliefs are your own fucking business, and I shouldn't have to be forced to deal with it being a part of my society.

[Doom-Dork]

...and that is why I believe that religion and politics sleeping together should be abolished.

[rustyslacker]

That'd be best for everyone.

Damn hardcore Republicans.

[Sigma]

What purpose does Christianity, Judaism or Islam serve with no influence on politics? At such a juncture, anyone who practiced such faiths would be doing nothing more than advertising their own obsolescence. Besides, segregating religion from politics would practically be more painful than outright abolishing religion. Or at least, educating people to see through such deceit. It isn't so much a matter of free-will as it is a matter of co- and counter-dependant relationships.

[Doom-Dork]

Ok maybe I should have said 'The church and politics sleeping together should be abolished'.