The UNBELIEF in God Has Caused More Problems Than It Has Solved!
Mark 6:1-6 says,
"Then He (Jesus) went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.
4 But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.” 5 Now He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And He marveled because of their unbelief. Then He went about the villages in a circuit, teaching."
Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
I think if people BELIEVED it and LIVED it, the world would be a better place....Just sayin.....If everyone loved everyone else as themselves then the world would be a better place.
However I don't believe that believing in the Christian God is necessary for that to happen... nor do I believe that loving a Christian God above all else in any way leads to the world being a better place.
Every major religion (and most minor ones) throw in the love others line. It's awesome advice... however it doe not require Christian belief to follow.
So I don't understand how the Love God thing is relevant. Walk me through that one.I agree with you. Christianity doesn't own all rights to love, especially since it is the common thread of all religions.
I do not belief either religion or no religion makes the world a better place. It is people that do, and many people of no-religion or other religions besides Christianity make this as great as a world as some Christians. I think a lot of the problem is people shoving their beliefs down others. They must be insecure in their beliefs of religion or not having one. If we stop fighting amongst ourselves as having the 'true' religon our would would see an improvement. All religions and those without a belief in God still hold to one common thread...love each other. So, maybe one day people will stop hating each other, and seize from shoving their beliefs down another. It is rude and senseless, if you really believe in love.Where did I read "God is love"? And if you don't believe in God than how can you know what love is? And shoving your words down someone's throat doesn't show love either. I think it has to do with showing by example in everything that person does with their own personal life choices.
Interesting subject. thank you
I don't see how the first passage would make any difference in the world, at all. Except to stop a percentage of religious violence. The second passage could make a difference worldwide. Since the command is twofold. But, if Christians can't follow those simple instructions why blame the world's problems on the nonbelievers?
90% of people think of believe in God in this world now.
How can we test this theory, unless 90% of our world are or were ever Atheists or non - believers?
Science was already proven it's wroth since 90% of professional scientist are Atheist or non believers. Life expectancy has doubled and triples since Darwin brought evolution to our minds in the mid 1800s.Even if that happens to be true, it does not logically follow that Life expectancy has doubled and tripled because Darwin brought evolution to our minds in the mid 1800s
So how does your statement help the discussion?
Just curious, that's all.Since the biblical times and Jesus, life expectancy has not changed much.
For example from age 21 to max age of 40 average anywhere in the world since 2000 years ago
In Canada, just a hundred years ago, Christian made up 98% of our population, Today it's about 60% Christians. About 90% of the people in this world think or believe Evolution exist.
Darwin was most renowned for opening minds to evolution. Jesus 33% of the WORLD'S POPULATION, has been a Champion of soul taking and of all other Religions. Christian discredited all other Religions of being of the same God.
It’s seem sports and Evolution get along well enough and they help bring the world together better.
Well, when was the last time you heard of a stampede at a revival? Sports arenas have them off and on. I believe the Canadians went ballistic recently at the end of a sporting event and rioted in the streets. I'm not aware of the Christians in Canada doing the same.
I don't know the last time I had a discussion about evolution at half time. And, I would venture to guess that if you asked a Nascar enthusiast about evolution they would think you were talking about some Bud beer mutating into light. Discussing the pros and cons; unsure if it was a benificial mutation.Sports related deaths I can't imagine would add up anywhere closed to Religious related death involved in wars, death sentences to gays or drugs relates and many other crimes laws that hardly match the crime.
I was in the middle of those Hockey riot in Vancouver when over 100 people attacked me and escaped. I think about two were killed Hardly compare to a million people killed in Iraq the mix war of religion and greed.But I still don't see where evolution and sports go hand in hand. That to the side, if you want to blame violence on religion, that is your choice. I just think it is wrong. People use religion as an excuse. Muslim extremists come to mind. But, is religion really the driving force? If so, why aren't all Muslims equipped with bombs strapped to their mid sections? Why aren't all Christians lurking outside of abortion clinics with guns; waiting to kill the doctors?
Believers use religion to support their petty narrow minded agenda. Atheists use religion to support their petty narrow minded agendas. Yes, religion is part of the problem. It is not the problem and the problem will live on whether religion exists or not.what "petty, narrow-minded agendas" do all atheists have? Just curious. I think I missed the manifesto.
Why do you insist on adding 'all' to that comment. You keep replying to posts I make to others and convert them in order to take them personally. Why is that?
when you say "atheists" you include all of them. What's the problem with just saying it more directly?
If I was going to take it personally and not just ask a question, I would say "what agenda do you think I, as an atheist, have"I suppose it was convenient to ignore the rest of my post. More fun to hone in on one sentence, separate it from the thought, and then ask a totally pointless question.
I can't explain something I didn't say. Sorry.i was just being sarcastic. I sincerely don't understand your attitude. What did I ever do to you?
If you said "some atheists" or even "a majority of atheists", I could accept that you may have some evidence to support your assertion. When you post in a forum, however, that has several atheists IN it, and you say 'atheists do ...." it implies all of them. I don't see how the sarcastic addition of one single word makes a difference - but it does seem to conveniently allow you to ignore the question entirely. Sounds more like you're taking things personally than anyone else.You really need to stop taking things so personally, and making up things in order to become offended. Am I the only hubber you are focusing on, or do you imagine all hubbers are actively attempting to insult you?
I am wondering, if you think my statement was a blanket accusation, why you aren't asking the same thing about the part on believers?where are you getting the information from that I'm taking anything personally? Do you know me somehow that I'm unaware of so that you know my thoughts and my moods better than I do? You should have a nobel prize for that kind of intuition.
Sarcasm is a dry sort of a joke. I'm sorry that you don't seem to be able to understand that concept.Don't change the subject. I know you are an atheist. I know you read into my comment what you wanted to. I'm simply curious why you feel the need to ask a pointless question? Or is it a reading comprehension problem. If that's the case; simply read my post again (it helps to start at the beginning). Take your time and it will all become clearer.
again - it's called sarcasm. I was making a sarcastic joke. Period. You assumed that I was taking your comment personally and making it all about me (which was wrong). You assumed that I was deliberately looking for an insult (which I wasn't) and you assumed that I was singling you out (which was also wrong, as my post history on this forum and multiple others can attest to).
Do you know what a joke is? Additionally, you'll get a lot farther with me when you don't tell me what to do.Ok. Pretend that your 'sarcasm' was that. I don't care. I wasn't telling you what to do. It was a suggestion. Again, you've read what you wanted to into my post in order to jump to a faulty conclusion. Be careful or it might become a habit.
lol you're ridiculous. You're in no position to tell me what I do or don't feel or what I do or don't think. thanks for playing, though.
And yet you do it all the time "telling Yourself" that you are perfectly walking the line between the two.
But you are not. We all tend to be guilty of many of the things we accuse others of doing.I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Perfectly walking the line between the two what?
If you can show me where I've done what you're indicating, I'd be happy to apologize for it.Give it up Jerami. Some float between reality and denial so fluidly they can't tell when they are in or out.
So, this little make believe game is your idea of adult behavior? Ok. Enjoy not being honest.
Amen! I've been saying the same thing for a long time!
Verse 3 sound like the way people think. They look at the outside, but not what is in a person's heart.
I'm trying to figure out what these specific scriptures have to do with the title of this forum post. The scripture at the end is a good one, but I'm missing the correlation
not too many atheists are out there blowing people up or burning them at the stake
True, but neither are the Christians who practice for themselves instead of as part of a collective organizational doctrine. Organized Christians have persecuted their own for not following their belief structure as well.
Out of curiosity, how many Christians are doing that? Just a ball park figure. I don't need exact numbers. Because I'm coming up with a number like...none.
well, for starters, christians in general believe that non believers will burn for eternity in hell. that is now. that always was.
more specifically the ethnic cleansing in eastern europe in recent years (think serbs, croations, etc) had christians and muslims systematically killing each other (and non believers). That is still happening. or don't those people count?Ethnic cleansing isn't necessarily caused by religion. If it was, they'd call it religious cleansing.
I'm not attempting to defend religion here. But these trite comments serve little purpose. If you go there, then you open the door to discussions about mass murder by atheistic regimes. I'd say they killed more than anything we could attribute to the religious in our time.
An atheist doesn't associate his philosophy with that of Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot, so it isn't fair to attempt to associate the philosophy of the garden variety Christian to regional violence which can be attributed to multiple causes. Outside of state violence and regional strife...please give me a ballpark figure of Christians burning people at the stake, or blowing them up.Let's talk about "In general"
You do realize that only 71% of Christians believe that hell even exists. Of that 71% only 32% believe it is an actual place of torment and suffering. So basically 1/3 of 3/4 of Christians believe that. Hardly Christians "in general"
In fact the correct statement would be Christians in general don't believe that non-believers will burn for eternity in hell. Which is kind of the opposite of what you said.haha, that's good. I do know that 93% (or is it 79%) of statistics are made up on the spot for the purpose of 'proving' a point. I think you fall into that 93 (79) %.
I generally don't use internet articles a source of information, but I looked at the article you mentioned. It's interesting, but I hardly think a sampling of 1000 people (the word random was never used) is hard enough evidence of those numbers.
What I also found interesting is that the 'barna group' describes itself as, and I pasted directly the first line of their website: Serving the information needs of the church by offering statistics, resources, seminars and custom research on current cultural and spiritual trends.
A little self serving, wot?"The data described in this report are based on national telephone surveys among random samples of 1000 or more adults (age 18 or older) living within the 48 continental states"
Actually it's an evangelical Christian research firm. The idea of a literal hell is a largely evangelical christian idea. If they were going to be biased it should have been it the opposite direction.
So tell me... If you generally don't use internet articles as a source of information then where did you get your information about what Christians- in general - believe?Weird - you seem to be forgetting that 90% of the so-called Christian cult live outside the USA. There are 2 billion + self-professed Christians, so culling 1,000 from US households that were at home to answer the phone during the day is not exactly representative - is it?
Jesus believed in hell as an eternal place. So do all the Catholics as far as I can tell.
I suggest you stop speaking for all Christians, unless you want to be lumped in with them.
Awww... Hey hon. Would 35k people examined by a non-partial source be better?
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/repor … ndings.pdf
I'm not going to link you to the exact page... Just because I think you should read it all.Not really - no. Did you miss the fact that 90% of Christians do not live in the USA? I do think it is great that American Christians are starting to openly reject everything the bible says, but such a small sample is not representative - no. Only one more step to atheism. You will get there. What does this mean?
"Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life."
74% believe in heaven as a place where people who have lived a good life go, yet only 59% believe in hell?
All this really tells me is what I already knew - you need to suspend intelligent thought to accept the bible as the word of god. How can you only have a place for the good people to go? Despite the clear biblical statement that atheists get the lake of fire along with the evil, the defiled, murderers, sorcerers, fornicators, idol worshipers and all liars.? Still - at least we agree that the "majority," of Christians still believe in hell?
Really - be honest instead of this. The bible makes no sense, contradicts itself and - seriously - that god who burns you for not believing?
But - instead of admitting that, what you guys do is, "interpret," it to mean something else so you get to still believe in an afterlife.
As I have mentioned before - one of the problems your religion causes is that no one can agree what the majick book says. Eventually we will have educated all of you to see that that is because it is makes no sense and contradicts itself massively.
Or maybe it is Americans? Or the idiots asking the questions? 20% of self professed atheists believe in god?
Mark wrote I do think it is great that American Christians are starting to openly reject everything the bible says, but such a small sample is not representative - no. Only one more step to atheism. You will get there. What does this mean? "Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life." But - instead of admitting that, what you guys do is, "interpret," it to mean something else so you get to still believe in an afterlife.
========
ME
I don’t think that American Christians are starting to openly reject EVERYTHING the bible says. I think that most are like me and believe that the Catholic church (in 326 AD) altered as much as they could get away with and left out much that would have given a different understanding. And there is much that is clearly stated that is then mis-interpreted. This does not prove that there is not a Creator or an afterlife. For this was prophesied in Rev. 13.No - all it proves is the bible is nonsense and no one agrees what it says. Once you understand that - you will reject the rest of it.
And afterlife and a creator? How silly.
If you need to suspend intelligent thought to accept the Bible then why are so many of the people who seem to have done that rejecting the Bible?
need to suspend intelligent thought to accept the Bible
Well, good we agree on this
Well, besides having it shoved down my throat by christians in general, I use the library, that's that big house where they keep all the books that were written by professional scholars with degrees and all that silly 'educational' information.
ROFLMAO...
So basically you're informal observations of a handful of Christians shoving something in your throat is somehow more convincing than a 1000 person poll. You say that 1000 people is not enough to form a good picture... and I might even agree with you on that... but then you say your opinion is based on a much smaller sample but is correct.
Now that is Cognitive Dissonance... Or a very skewed requirement for burden of proof. I'm not sure which one.
But anyway... thanks for the backhanded attack on my intelligence. I guess since I'm a Christian that must mean I am both uneducated and unintelligent... by your opinion. That assumption definitely says something about the level of intelligence of one of us.Since every word in the bible is true, Just take out these words and I will believe most Christains do not believe in eternal torture
Rev. 20:10 The devil, beast, and false prophet being tormented "forever and ever."
Mt. 18:8 thrown into eternal fire."
Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17 - John the Baptist said the Lord will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. This unquenchable fire is the state of eternal separation from God,
Matt. 25:41 - Jesus says, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Matt. 25:46 - Jesus says, "they will go away into eternal punishment" which is in reference to this eternal fire.
Mark 9:47-48 - Jesus refers to hell as where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It lasts forever.
Jude 6-7 - the rebelling angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Rev. 14:11 - the worshipers of the beast suffer and the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever.
Rev. 20:10 - they're tormented in the lake of fire and brimstone day and night forever and ever.
Isaiah 33:14 - "Who of us can dwell in the everlasting fire?" This is a reference to hell which is forever.
Isaiah 66:24 - their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched. We cannot fathom the pain of this eternal separation from God.
Jer. 15:14 - in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn forever. Hell is the proper compliment to the eternal bliss of heaven.
Judith 16:17 - in the day of judgment the Lord will take vengeance on the wicked and they shall weep in pain forever. Hell is a place that sinners have prepared for themselves by rejecting God, who desires all people to be saved in His Son Jesus Christ. God sends no one to hell.Why are you quoting bible verses at me? I don't quote bible verses at you.
Why Hell and eternal torture written so many times, if it’s not true? Is it not your core belief system?
Between NT and OT Dr. Kennedy says the Scriptures speak of eternity in Hell 60 times. Maybe because only 3% Christain members go to church regarlarly and the fear of Hell motivates stronger and Heaven give them a false promise of better place than here on earth, since most people are not aware of the bible here on earth, and will be very shocked on Judgement Day.
It seems most Christians do not study the Bible, or read it that much and have trouble finding Genesis. It seems most Christian base their belief system off of what everyone else believes. If Eternal torture was true than Jesus would be a million time vindictive than Hitler and contradict that God is love Yes, Eternal torture is unjust and the any crime would not fit the pushishment. The only sect I can find that claims they do not believe in a "burning Hell".or eternal torture are the Jehovah's Witness. They believe Hell is the common grave of mankind and look forward to the day when "hell" will be emptied.She rejects what the bible says and makes her own version up. Apparently that is what Christians do now. They don't need to worry about what the bible says if they don't like it.
Good afternoon Mark
Thank you for separating me as a person before you made claims...
As these are specifically about me I fell I can answer them with authoritativeness.
I do not reject the bible...however there are things that I do indeed choose to ignore... For lots of reasons. They don't apply to me... they don't give me inspiration... etc.
I've never made my own version up... but I do interpret it differently than others.
So?So - you do reject a big part of the bible. I think it is great that you ignore a lot of the bible.But - Interpreting it differently is making up your own version.
My imagination has an aim of making good sense. Seems like a lot of anicent spitituality hard times mix with imagination that gets lost in space on a huge social program.
Most often Melissa makes good sense, why a few smart christians like her choose to limit her mind on the Bible, I may never knowWhy would you think I've limited my mind on the Bible?
The Universal Bible is the universal truth in science and religion. It provides the answers to many major problems in science and religion today. The Bible reveals the universal truth, shadow of the universal truth that can be applied to anywhere in the universe. Do you believe the six-day creation, the original humans?
Or do you take notes from the Bible like I do or from the 1000s of other good books, actually I don’t think the Bible filled with enough kindness for me
You claim to be Christian, no?I am a Christian.
I don't believe in the six day creation nor do I believe in the adam/eve of genesis. (Although there sometime somewhere was/had to have been a mating couple that first experienced "humaness")
I do take from other religious sources... I do take from other non-religious sources. However most of my inspiration comes from Christ's teachings.
If only most of American could be Christ like, a mystic of Christ coulds work If they could help the sick and poor alot more. Control the greedy form harming the natural enviorment , and lead wars and prisons.
Not enough answers and good examples to win over and steal my soulI would suggest you don't be a Christian then
@ Castle...To my understanding Hell was not created for man. It was created for Satan and his fallen angels. Man is a free moral agent. Man can chose his own path. God doesn't send people to Hell. God is only sending Satan and his fallen angels to Hell. Everybody else that's going is going by choice.
Deuteronomy 30:15, 5 "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess."
Deuteronomy 30:19 and 20, 19 "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days;"
Let's quit the jumping off of skyscrapers and blaming God for gravity.
(the God who some claim doesn't exist, but will simultaneously blame Him for everything anyway....)
Be Blessed!god does, in fact, send people to hell - if the god of the bible exists.
1) did god create hell?
2) did he create the laws by which his "creation" is supposed to abide by?
3) is he ultimately responsible for judgement?
If the answer to all three of those questions is yes, then god indeed sends people to hell - 2/3 of the world's population, in fact.
The only choice left is "would I follow the whim of this tyrannical god who would damn the large majority of his population for simply denying his existence"
I'm an atheist. If given the choice, I would choose NOT to go to hell - but I don't believe that hell exists. Ultimately, if the god of the bible is real, and hell is a real place, then he chooses to send people there. That makes him a dictator in my view. A mob-boss who says "do what I say or else". I would never again willingly worship such a being - and if you do follow him, you have to ask yourself if you're doing it because you're hoping for an eternal reward - or you're fearful of an eternal punishment. Either of those options is not true "faith".
If god is omniscient like the majority of christians claim, then he knew, in creating hell, that it would also include human beings. Why, then, would he create it at all if that was never his intention. It seems like christians and their god are fine with the idea of the majority of people being tortured and burned forever. Doesn't sound like a very moral code to me.
Additionally, I also find it amusing that you quote the old testament in your diatribe about hell. Jews don't believe in hell - or heaven, for that matter. The concept of hell and heaven as it stands today is purely a new testament invention.I think what he means is that People choose to go to Hell because the choices they make in life.. The spiritual equivalent of an employer saying "We don't fire anyone. They fire themselves"..
it's still untrue. If an "almighty creator" created this place of eternal torment, knowing in his infinite wisdom that the large majority of his creation would end up there but created it anyway, it's safe to say that god is ultimately responsible for the eternal torment of millions upon millions of people. It's god choice. He could say "I forgive you" - he's almighty - he can decide to do that. He doesn't. In order to be "saved" you have to accept, with no evidence whatsoever, that he sent himself to earth in order to sacrifice himself back to himself to appease himself - and if you believe all this based on nothing but "faith" you'll be spared eternal torture - and get eternal reward instead.
Most Christian, I know believe most people will be going to Hell except themselves. Some how they know how to escape the rapture and very picky God picks them to live with him in an extremely happy place forever and ever.
Makes a very nice story anyways, but missing an extreme amount of facts.
First, it's "disbelief", not "unbelief", and what kind of problems are we talking about here? The world is in a much lovelier place with less of that God BS hanging around.
This post was meant to be an answer to another post regarding how the belief in God has caused problems, But It appears to have missed the mark a little
It was not meant to be an answer. It was meant, as I listed before, to be the "other side of the coin". And after so far recieving 247 posts in 7 days, it obviously has generated much thought about both issues. Consider the mark obliterated. Who knows what some may grasp from this forum. Hopefully it will bring glory to God in some way, form or fashion and simultaneously get some to consider what Jesus said and how he lived and to ultimatley come to a place of faith in God. Apparently, Deepes, again, you my friend have missed the mark. I will keep you and others as well in my prayers.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
New King James Version (NKJV)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Be blessed!Problem, Mr Curry, with that excerpt from a 2,000 year old dialogue between the former vice president and assistant chancellor of the Sanhedrin, being Saul of Tarsus half Roman citizen / half Lawful Hebrew, murderer of thousands, political heavyweight, ambitious enough to change history and a young, impressionable student named Timothy is the use of the verbiage. "Scripture" to a Lawful Hebrew is strictly and only Mosaic Law, Songs of King David and Wisdom {Proverbs}. So, when a 21st century believer in the Restoration makes the statement "All Scripture..." to form a stance on the necessity of textual conformity, and the validity of its context, they are essentially causing conflict and forcing doctrine/rules upon others that were written for one mans eyes. Another word for such enforcement is called jihad -a term credited to none other than Saul of Tarsus. Interesting coincidence, no?
Also, do not forget, the "Gospel of Peace" and "Scripture" are NOT the same thing. Every milker knows this. Those who eat meat, are the ones bringing that gospel to others. Because it fattens them up with joy, life and every good thing -as it does those who partake of it. Those who practice "Scripture" are thin, frail, shaking with fear, bound to the altar, and will be (not could be or might be or should be, no no --). They will be sacrificed. All sacrifice ends in death. That is the purpose of it: to let the blood flow that the sin may bleed out...
James.Another response that misses the mark. At the time the scripture listed above in Timothy was written Saul of Tarsus had been transformed into the Apostle Paul. Big difference. I normally don't even indulge in such foolishness but the absurdity of some of these responses demand an answer. Going forward, due to all of the responses that I have previously listed in this particular forum, which more than answer any previous comments and more than likely any future ones as well, my answer will simply be ....silence. I was only posting food for thought not a pretense for argument or debate although anymore any form of thought on the subject of God or Jesus brings about heated arguments or debates, mostly from those who say they don't believe.....Go figure.
Acts 9
New King James Version (NKJV)
The Damascus Road: Saul Converted
9 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
Be blessed!Do yourself a favor: come at me with more than a bible and gonads of a goat herder, please.
I have ministered the bible on three continents for nearly half my life, until my "Damascus Road" when it was revealed how much of a pagan {you know, Christian} I had become -worshiping books, fearing false entities called demons and serving ba`al magistrates {literally translated "God" or "gods"}. And how I had taught thousands upon thousands of people -day in and day out- the Law of Sin and Death. Page by page, line by line, precept upon precept. Every day I filled them to the full and they ate it like kings. I was worse than Saul: at least he was a straight up, sword to the neck murderer. Me, I was killing people in the name of 'god' too, with the very "Scripture" he set them free from. I taught them paganism. I taught them fear and obedience in the name of "love".
"Transformed?" Ha! You actually believe that? That he, who was on his way to Syria, to finalize his mission against the "Believing Sect/The Way" suddenly had a "moment" and became all goodie-goodie? You do know history records Saul is responsible for the establishment of what is presently known a Islam? Do you also know he is responsible for Peter, John and James` death because he forced them to go with him to Rome? Why did Saul want to go to Rome? Do you remember? Because the Israeli's were going to kill him? Nope. Try he wanted to convince Rome to conform to "Lawful Judaism" and using this "Way" was a perfect avenue. His people would then be free from centuries of oppression and he would become the ruler of a new Sanhedrin: The church of Rome.... There is so much I could teach you, but what's the point.
Study, Mr Curry, to shew yourself approved. Because right now, you're a workman who should be ashamed. Just saying. Anyway, no insult intended, but as the "good book" says: never muzzle an ox while it treads the field, so I won't muzzle you. Keep treading that field brother. At some point, your hooves will kill everything in it, with that "gospel of peace"...You have, again, proven my points fantasticly. Thanks!
Really, now.
Show me, precisely, what "points" I have "fantastically" proven on your behalf. Slight of hand, bible bites are not points, they are Memorex® vomit from a forgetful mind -but still, a heart [I feel] desires to understand. It is because of the later that I even engage the conversation and shall continue to. Same as I engage every other pagan, atheist, scientist, etc. As I told someone a while back, I speak to people in a language they understand. To do otherwise is not only insulting, it is rude and demeaning -plus it lacks true love, fortitude and character. So, that said, show me these points -and do be specific, not dodgy or piled more bible verses. Thanks.
James.It really IS good to see you back, on fire as usual. Also, your background is new to me and it probably gives a much deeper understanding of all religious teachings over the past 2000 years. Thanks for taking the trouble and time to research.
Thanks, Johnny.
Am always on fire -hehe.
It is a rare occasion I explain my background to most believing because they tend to do the "Oh [long awkward pause] " thing, then a barrage of how I have "backslid". It normally ends up in a scripture war -where most are left very frustrated and even more upset with my words, so I tend to shy back a bit.
How are things in Taz, good summer?
James
I couldn't agree with you more! In fact recently on Facebook I made a post about the fact that if we taught about God in school, there would be less crime, less hatred, less war, less drug use, less adultry, less abuse, less homelessness, and less evil.
It's pretty sad that nowdays a persons first encounter with God/Jesus is in prison when they're left with no other choices. They [more than likely] wouldn't be in that position if they'd believed in God first.I did some work in Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Per capita Sheboygan had the most bars and Churches than anywhere in America, I assume to wash their sins away. Also, eating too much Cheese is worst then smoking, which smoking is worst killer than all drugs combined and legal every where in the world wail pure pot is illlegal everywhere in the world and has no concrete proof it has killed anyone.
Just more example of Christian brainwashing like God in school, there would be less crime, less hatred, less war, less drug use, less adultery, less abuse, less homelessness, and less evil. America is more Sodom and Gomorrah like than any where else in the World.
Yes it would be a better place if everyone lived by the word of Jesus and God, but the goal of Satan is to convince the world he doesn't exist, and his followers are working hard at doing so it's all part of the NWO Agenda 21. It's our job as watchmen to warn.
I second that it is our job as watchmen to warn.
Getitrite, I find your endorsementof NWO, by associating him with the Disney version, where Chicken Little had good reason to be concerned about upcoming events and by his warning helped save the town, to be touching. Normally your posts are negative, demeaning and dismissive. Good to see you taking a more positive course in the new year.
- Aleister888posted 11 years ago
0Interesting point of view, i do think that while un-questioning beleif in anything in particular is dangerous, you are right that modern day society is lacking in morals and wisdom,
I don't have an un-questioning beleif in anything, I question everything and research it to the fullest. I also happen to have had experiences with paranormal and near death.
Religion and atheism-basing threads are equally boring.
Interesting OP. If you're looking for some "amen's", backslapping and "right on's" with little else to contribute you started well.
If, on the other hand, you were looking for reasoned responses from non-believers as to why they might disagree, a selection of quotations from a book of fantasy directing everyone to love an imaginary and fictional book character more than they love their wife and kids probably isn't going to accomplish much except derision.
Learning to speak the language of the listener is important; without it you will never get much response. At least response that makes much sense.Actually this was in response to a post that said, "The belief in God has caused more problems than it's solved.."
CheersOh... so it's a "Do unto others as you'd have done to you" kinda thing?
Well, it certainly isn't a "turn the other cheek" kinda thing.
Truthfully it looks more like a "na na boo boo" kinda thing.Did you ride your bike, or bring your lunch today?
You know I've gotten used to your STATEMENTS not making any sense. Now your questions don't.
Let me try...
Did you wear your socks on your feet or your hands today?
No. It's the other side of the coin. Psalm 12:2 says,
Everyone lies to their neighbor; they flatter with their lips but harbor deception in their hearts.And the Book of the FSM says "no one listens or, if they chance to, are incapable of true learning".
Additional quoting of the fantasy book makes it plain that you either didn't listen or didn't learn. Can you possibly have any idea of what your quoting that book is actually saying to someone that recognizes it for the fantasy it is?It's amazing how a post about God and loving your neighbor can evoke so many petty, bitter, and disdainful responses. But a post that says the opposite of mine is applauded. No wonder America is where it is today.... Food for thought.... You all have proved my point and the scripture in fantastic form and fashion! Thanks for your posts!
The point I made... that you ignored... is that you don't have to love God to love your neighbor.
You have just lumped them together...
No one is saying you shouldn't love your neighbor.
Debate fairly or don't debate at all. I'm a Christian and I can't stand mindless quoting of scripture. It makes all of us look brainwashed.
So... AGAIN... why does one have to love a Christian God to love their neighbor.
Take all the time you need.
Then the other question I asked was how will loving the Christian God make the world a better place?
Take all the time you need on that one too.
But don't quote scripture at me... I own several Bibles. If I wanted to read scripture I'd reach over and grab one.You have, for the third time, ignored the point. Quoting scripture to a non believer is about as useful as spitting into the wind. The only thing it tells the non-believer is that you have no thoughts of your own - that you prefer to fall back on quotes from a nonsense book written thousands of years ago that is of no value today.
The problem isn't particularly that the bible has nothing of value - it does - it is that non-believers aren't going to be interested in quotes from it. If you want reasoned responses, speak from a factual, evidential basis rather from a faith that non-believers don't share.
If you want to discuss that not believing the bible causes trouble, present some facts, some evidence or at a bare minimum some original thoughts that such a concept might be true. Don't simply quote passages that have nothing to do with lack of belief causing trouble in society.And this is why I love you. And love talking to you.
And I missed your post. Oh well, another day and time, Motown. I, too - at least you mostly seem to understand what I have to say whether you agree or not. Although that might indicate your brain is as twisted and deformed as my own - probably a bad thing overall.
Perhaps if you tried reading the bible instead of preaching it? Perhaps if you actually showed this love you claim to hold for your neighbor? IDK? Maybe? What do you think?
From my perspective - as usual for a self professed Christian - all you seem to be doing is telling people what you think they should be doing and not demonstrating it yourself. Pretty sure there is something in your majick book about that.
America is where? You would prefer the old days of slavery or segregation? Weird.I think instead of pointing fingers at non-believer in Jesus, which is what you are doing, walk the path of Jesus. He was not a negative person. He practice loving everyone. He would not have started a thread, thumping people on the head because they were not Christians, after all he died a Jew.
True, but He would most certainly have told people that they need to follow Him, which is what He did.
I wasn't pointing fingers. I sated the facts. Scroll up. read EVERYTHING closely and see for yourself....That's the other thing they do, blame the messenger....lol You all have missed the point of the post entirely and taken it completely out of the context and went way out in left field....WOW.
if "believers" can't even get along and agree on which methods should be used how do you expect non believers to fall in line. I think Renee was simply trying to point out that Jesus would be the last person to try to force belief in him down other's throats. If anyone was capable of pointing fingers and casting blame, he would be - but he didn't. Why do belivers not follow his example more closely then?
Where do you get that? In one sense that's true, He didn't force belief in Him down other's throats. But He made pretty clear that failing to follow Him would lead to an unpleasant afterlife.
Interesting. "Believe in Me or suffer eternal pain," is not forcing it down people's throats?
Lets talk about suspending intelligent thought again shall we?It depends. Is it true or not? If it's true, then all the posturing in the world makes little difference.
And if it's false, then all the posturing in the world doesn't improve anything, now does it?If it is true then your god is indeed forcing belief by threats. But, as it cannot be true, I think eradicating such an irrational thought process as you are demonstrating will improve things. I know you cannot see that, and I refer you to my last comment.
But it is true. Which is why actual eradication will never happen.
Of course it will. Just ask Melissa - she has facts that show even Christians are realizing it is nonsense and have stopped believing such childish threats.
Have to say - this is a rather disgusting belief you cling to. Immoral and offensive. No wonder your religion produces so much hatred and ill will.Actually... Melissa has evidence that Christianity is adapting to society. The religion is changing to fit it's environment.
Would you like to discuss the implications that has on the probability of Christianity surviving?That's an interesting thought, and question. I was thinking yesterday about our constitution. It being described as a living document. I was fretted at the fact that Obama was going to attempt to circumvent what I believe is a firm and clearly outlined separation of powers in order to attempt to change gun laws by executive order. But, the constitution is a living document. We've changed course before. Come to a different understanding of the intent. Because the document was designed to ensure a reflection of the will of the people.
Which may have nothing to do with your comment. But, I think it is fascinating that the Bible is, to some extent, timeless and fluid; as our constitution was designed to be. As society evolves, to allow the luxury of more civilized behavior and thought, the document does support that higher agenda..and appears to be capable of supporting more. I suppose because both documents began as an attempt to guide the down trodden who had been freed from the jack boot of tyranny. To give them a base to build on. To grow from.
I think that is the crux of the problem within the structure of organized Christianity, and society here in America as a whole. (maybe the world, at large) Some want to grow and evolve. Learn from past experience and not make the same mistakes. To correct inequities when they are exposed. And some prefer not to think. To doggedly insist if it was good enough for the founders and those who lived in that society, they are not allowed to change it. But, everything changes, or dies. Our ability to understand the needs of our fellow man has changed drastically over the course of time. Because society evolved.
I guess my point is that changes made in interpretation of the Bible may weaken Christianity at first glance. But, if those changes reflect what is best for what is currently perceived as the least among them it will strengthen it, in the long run. It will shake off dead weight. And if the faith does die it will prove it was just dead weight to start with.I fully agree that if christianity continues to adapt it has a higher likelyhood of surviving. If it had never experienced the age of enlightenment, for example, and still insisted on burning heretics at the stake, the church would not have survived THIS long. At this point, fundamental christianity has found a foothold in the US when it gained some semblance of political power. In Europe, where religion is much LESS prominent, societies seem to be making great strides towards equality, lower crime rates, lower violent crimes, lower abortion rates, lower divorce rates, etc. Go figure that the crime problem, abortion rates and divorce rates are skyrocketing in the "nation under god"
Sure - it is evolving into something else. Thus Christianity will not survive - it will adapt and become something else. Exactly the same way previous religions did. I predict it will evolve into secular humanism.
So tell me - do you also reject the Adam and Eve/Original sin story?*Smiles* Grab some coffee dear. I answered the Adam and Eve question a few pages back. Are you slipping in your dotage?
I'm sure it will evolve into a completely different religion... Someday. I can see secular humanism ...possibly. UU's- at least- tend to lean that way (if you put us all on a spectrum that is... middle looks a bit like secular humanism)
I think the question is largely academic however as I believe that neither you nor I will be alive to see that next phase. I seriously doubt that my grandchildren will be alive to see it either.
There are a couple other comments in this thread I'd like to answer but I haven't had MY coffee yet and I AM slipping in my dotage.I'm gonna grab a refill and have some coffee with you.
Don't give me 'dotage!' You're no older than I am, and I'm a spring chicken.
Mark is....a fall chicken at worst.I actually have to go to the store before I have my coffee... demmit.
I'm more of an early summer chicken... definitely not spring. Mark might be around a mid-November chicken.
You are going to make me go back and look through all this lot? Why not just cut and paste your answer?
I am watching your religion devolve as we speak. I don't live in the Mid West USA. I live in France and am watching it disintegrate across Europe right now. It has changed drastically in my lifetime already. I was caned as a child for saying Christianity is silly, now we are talking about separating church and state in the UK.
Coffee to hand....."I don't believe in the six day creation nor do I believe in the adam/eve of genesis. (Although there sometime somewhere was/had to have been a mating couple that first experienced "humaness")"
There you go dear.
*Shrugs* If you consider it devolving I guess that depends on your viewpoint. I see it as evolving. To each his own. Like I said it is largely academic anyway.
Look Mark I know you had a bad experience with Christianity... and I can definitely see where that is possible. I know lots of people who use Christianity as the reason they do stupid stuff. It has been a positive force in my life though. Sometimes that happens too.Devolving - yes. I see it dropping things rather than gaining them and evolving into something else. I see it as devolving into something we no longer need. So - no original sin either then? Is that correct?
If you say so Mark.
Nope... No original sin.
Not really certain I believe in "sin" so much as a separate concept. For me it's just a synonym of "wrong"Well - please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but - isn't the entire basis of Christianity the need for a Christ/Messiah to come save us from original sin? Without that sacrifice to "save us," - there is no Christianity? Now - I know you guys have fought a lot of wars over this issue, but - I think they all agree on this part - yes?
Well again that depends on the branch of Christianity...
My particular little branch broke off somewhere in the 1500's. In general- they didn't see Jesus as a part of God and while his sacrifice was noble... it wasn't particularly divine. By the 1700's (circa Jefferson) we had largely discarded the resurrection. That was pretty much the emerging belief when Adams founded the first Unitarian Church.
All these-btw-are "generals". Dogma has never really been big in the U/UU faith.So - why the need to follow the Messiah if he was not a Messiah and there is no need for one anyway? What sacrifice is this? A worthless sacrifice that was unnecessary because there was no sin to eradicate? I think "stupid," is more appropriate than, "noble." Don't you?
This is actually interesting because it is one of the first steps I took in rejecting the entire thing. No original sin (a concept which makes absolutely no sense - especially given the biblical "guaranteed to fail," scenario) means no sacrifice needed, therefore it is all garbage. Only a complete idiot would have himself crucified for no reason.
You will get there.LOL... I'll probably not get there... at least not to where you are. We started from different points. I was not raised in Christianity. I chose it at a very late point in my life. There are nothing but positives associated with it for me personally.
I never believed in original sin so there was no throwing off of a yolk. The belief just never existed.
Nor did I ever think of Jesus as the Messiah.
I don't think he died to erase sins... that's another branch of Christianity. I think he was crucified for the life he led and as such died for what he believed in. That's noble.
I'm not really getting anywhere Mark. This is how I believed before I even knew such a person as Mark Knowles existed.
I'm not saying your ideas aren't well-thought out and your arguments aren't valid... you just never have said anything that relates directly to my personal beliefs... The thing that I argue most with you about is broad generalizations. I personally don't think they are a good thing no matter what the topic of debate is. There is nothing that you have said to convince me otherwise.I have said things that relate to your personal beliefs. Christians follow the Messiah. The word "Christ," means literally "Anointed," or "Messiah." You reject this - therefore you are not a Christian. This is like me calling myself a "Satanist," when I don't accept the existence of Satan.
*Smiles* If you say so Mark.
If you don't think I'm a Christian than don't consider me one. It might confuse our conversations somewhat but it doesn't really change my worldview.Sorry - it is not that I don't consider you a Christian. That word has a specific meaning. I did not come up with the meaning. Christ = Messiah. Not my fault. I can call myself "Satanist," as much as I like - it will not be the fact that you don't consider me one that makes me not a Satanist.
In any case - it will stop me lumping you in with the actual Christians.Oh no! I hope that doesn't me you will stop arguing with me. If it does I'll have to convert to a fundamentalist evangelical.
Of course not. I enjoy arguing with you. You dismiss everything I say so nicely.
Some Christians are coming to believe that they were wrong. If you look at history, it's difficult to say that this is a real harbinger of the eradication of Christianity. It keeps coming back, even among pockets of education and affluence. But calling it a name must validate the belief that it's not a valid belief, right?
But - you have never looked at history - have you?
I've quoted it as often and as accurately as you, Mark. You may say I haven't and you may believe it but it's still true.
Mark is aware that those who have strong religious beliefs often are emotional thinkers.
Think about that when dealing with him. Take all the time you need.
He is trying to get you to admit that in the scope of religious belief you are acting irrationally. Which by definition you are. So when you respond irrationally then you are proving him correct.
Religious beliefs ARE irrational. You can say they aren't but they really are. It doesn't make them bad belief... it just means they aren't rooted in a logical/scientific (read rational) basis.
The obvious solution is to admit it and ask yourself: So What?I have said that before in the forums, although probably not to Mark.
It's a bit of a paradox, really. The idea of a Creator God is "not rational" in light of the laws of physics. Yet if you know God exists, it would be irrational to deny His existence.Yes, but how do you know a god exists if there is no "rational" proof for it?
Ah! A very good question!
I do have an answer, but tell me, if you were a rationalist who was presented with something that seemed to strongly be proof of God's existence, what would you do? How would you explain it?If i were to find reasonable, justifiable proof for a god that I could not explain in any other way, I would not be able to deny that god exists. What I then did with that information, however, is an entirely different story.
Fair enough.
To answer your question, I started examining what I was going through and trying to compare it to what others had gone through. If one or two people have similar experiences, then it's a coincidence and there could well be some psychological explanation. But if hundreds or thousands of people have experiences not unlike ones that I've had, even if they didn't have all the same experiences, then it starts to get a bit harder to dismiss. At some point, the irrational becomes more rational when a materialist answer won't satisfy the criteria. There have been other events that I haven't listed in the hub, but after a while it becomes as much an act of faith to insist that so many happenings are pure coincidence as it does to say that there is some supernatural presence behind it.
I also followed my own natural bent and started reading. Theology, apologetics and history. And of course the Bible. There are things in the Bible I take on faith, to be sure, but there are things that make a lot of sense in light of what I've studied.
I know a lot of people think I'm a nut. Possibly a sincere nut, maybe even a nice guy who's a nut, but I'm not so stupid as to think that other people will just accept what I say. Nevertheless, if you're looking for a materialist, "rationalist" explanation, God doesn't work that way. If you actually read the Bible you'll see He doesn't. I've known God and I've "heard" God and I've even tried to walk away from God, but I can't. I believe in God.
but can you prove that it's true? No. So how can you assert it as absolute truth when you have not died or come back to life or gotten a collect call from anyone suffering in hell?
That depends on what you mean by prove. Do you want the burning bush? God doesn't work that way, and in any case most people wouldn't believe it was from God if it danced on the head of a pin right in front of them.
Mark, I think, asked the most salient question about why I insist on going on as I do, in the face of the (sometimes vituperative) opposition I encounter. It would certainly be easier to go another way.Typical dishonesty Chris. Hate to shatter your delusions of knowing what everyone else would do, but - you speaking as though you have proof and then attacking everyone else as not accepting the proof if it was offered is why your religion causes so much ill will.
See history.You lost me there, Mark. I don't know what you're talking about.
Ah, okay, a little slow on the uptake.
I haven't spoken against anyone for not accepting my proof. Not even you, and you have by far been the most cantankerous in your dealings with me.
The fact is that I've been alive long enough to know human nature. Would 'everyone else' refuse to believe? No, and I didn't say that. But most people would stick with what they already believe, even when faced with something different.
Historically speaking, that is.
It's not a delusion, or if it is then you and I are in the same boat because your constant wrong-footed assessments of my actions and motives are equally, shall we say, grounded in reality then. But only then.Ah - OK - misunderstanding - I thought you said this:
Can you show me where "most people didn't believe it was from God when it danced on the head of a pin right in front of them."
Historically speaking.
Gotta be honest - I don't recall you showing me any proof of anything other than that your delusion seems to be starting to get the better of you.Okay, Mark. You tell me. If something completely irrational were to happen right in front of you and a voice inside your head said "This is from God," would you automatically believe? I could be wrong, but from what I've seen when dealing with you I tend to doubt it. And I've dealt with many people.
The old Twilight Zone television show has practically entire seasons dealing with that very subject, that when presented with something out of the ordinary and "irrational" most people cling to what they already know and believe. And I don't blame them. It's not an easy adjustment, it's one I still struggle with.
And before you are quick to "correct" me, I might point out that what I'm saying now is really no different from what I've been writing all along in this forum and others. But it is at this point that you say my "delusion" is getting the better of me.Sorry - I thought we were talking about an actual event. Now you are using a fictional TV series to make your point?
You have dealt with many people who god has spoken to and they reject it? So no actual proof? In any case - is your god not prescient enough to be sure and offer something I would accept? Assuming it went to the trouble of contacting me personally, I would think it would make sense to be clear instead of hoping I swallow it on faith based on something unexplainable happening.
Yes - your delusion does see to be getting the better of you. Sad to say, I have watched you go from a mild-mannered "normal, armchair Christian,", to a fire and brimstone preaching eternal damnation zealot claiming that god is telling you to do it.
Katherine's "proof," is that she has been reincarnated. You reject it and ask for actual proof.
Your proof is that He Has Made Himself Know To You so you worship Him, despite the fact that burning innocent people for not believing nonsense is - at best - immoral and unworthy of a Supreme Being. Now you are offering the Twilight zone as an example to prove your point.....?
You are being completely hypocritical and seem to be turning yourself into the sort of Christian that causes nothing but ill will and hatred. If anything - you are achieving the exact opposite of what god (presumably he wants believers) wants you to do.
I know why (I think) but I am just rather sad to see it happen, because I don't like the New You.Well, aren't we clever?
I've said many times that I am fully aware of what people will think when I write about my experiences. There's a real danger when writing about it that people will assume I am (or am becoming) some kind of Holy Roller. What I'm saying now is really no different from what I've said before, it's just that at this moment the emphasis has been shifted from what I believe based on the Bible to the reason I became a Christian in the first place, which was experiential. Some people can't understand it, the same way I can't understand why some people do certain things. And I can be just as dismissive as I've encountered from other people. I'm no better than anyone else, no holier than anyone else. In many ways the only real difference between me and you is that God made Himself known to me and I completely understand how weird that sounds to a lot of people, because I used to be one of them. When I was living in New York City I was just annoyed by all the different religious types hanging out on the street, whether Christians or Hare Krishnas or Moonies or Scientologists.
And Melissa is not the first person to point out the dangers of talking about my experiences. It's been pointed out to me before that I started to sound like I thought I had special dispensation from God, which I don't.
What I believe is based on my study of the Bible and history. Why I believe in God at all is based on my experiences. You may or may not be right when you say you think you know why I'm "changing" (although to be honest, I wasn't aware you liked the "old me" all that much) and from experience, I know that people can be correct about the "what" and still miss the "why." I have done it many times.
But, I'm happy to go back to discussing theology. I like doing that.This not a theological discussion. Nor have you been attempting to discuss theology. You have been telling us what god has been telling you to do. In any case - what you believe is not based on the bible. The bible is pretty clear about sticking scriptures to us and telling us god will punish us for all eternity if we don't jump on the bandwagon. Your lack of biblical understanding is only surpassed by your lack of historical knowledge.
If I didn't like you, I would not have spent as much time supporting you as I did via emails when your wife died. But - no matter - clearly you don't care for my opinion so I will let it rest there.
And - yes - I am rather clever. Thank you for noticing.No, this is not a theological discussion. It has been a discussion of my experiences and it went off the rails somewhere.
What I believe is based on the Bible. We just haven't been discussing that for a while. I've been pretty clear that, although my perspective on it is somewhat different from yours, I agree that God does say there is eternal punishment for "not jumping on the bandwagon," although that's still only part of it.
I very much appreciated your emails. The reason I never brought them up within the forums was because I didn't want anyone to think I was attempting to co-opt you or in any way make it sound like this was all a big joke. But please don't doubt that they have meant a lot to me and continue to do so.Let's stick with this then. I was not looking for anything other than you recognized that I did like you and do not like the new you. You said you thought I never liked you. But you have certainly changed.
I think the original question was - why do you choose to worship such a disgusting god?
And you said - because He speaks to you? That right? And tells you to go do stuff? So - you don't care that it punishes people eternally if they get things wrong? Doesn't bother you that this seems some what unfair - given that you and your ilk are the only "evidence," we have of this eternal punishment, and anyone with a brain can see your beliefs are fear-driven?I think some clarification is called for here. The phrase "speaks to me" I want to point out (and have done so often in the past, so this is not new information) is not meant that I literally hear a voice. I have known people who claim that, but they are few and far between, and they don't claim it on a regular basis. As for the "tells you to go do stuff," I would also like to clarify that although the answer is technically "yes," those instructions (as it were) are found in the Bible. I don't get marching orders from some disembodied voice, nor from some preacher.
In a very real sense, once you understand (I'm using the editorial "you") that God does, indeed, exist and He is the one from the Bible, then discussion about "fair" and "unfair" become academic. I don't really pretend to understand the whole thing, but the Bible does lay out that rewards are waiting for those who follow and punishments are waiting for those who disobey. Whether it's fair or not is not going to make a whole lot of difference when you're standing in front of someone who's sheer power leaves you a quivering heap on the ground.
Now, having said that, there really is an entire other side to this that so many people, both on your side and on mine, miss. And that's a shame. Although it's true that fear is a healthy and natural part of the equation, the fact is that God does love us and when we have a relationship with Him, it is quite a sweet and joyous thing in this world, as well as the next. That does not mean we will have material comforts or money or anything like that (the proverbial "soft clothes") but it does mean that there is a spiritual blessing and sense of well-being in His presence on a daily basis. I've experienced that.
However, if you believe that hell exists and that it's a place of eternal torment, then why in hell wouldn't you be scared of it?So all that guff about loving god and people who do what god wants because they fear hell was just hot air?
But - you don't care that your god appears to be completely unfair then? You read it in a book and although you don't understand it, that is fine. You are so scared, "fair," doesn't enter the equation.
As a matter of interest - why don't you just say "I read it in the bible," instead of claiming that god made Himself Know to you and spoke to you? That way you would not come across so badly.
Doesn't carry the same weight huh? I used to see one of the other religious zealots use the word "convicted," which is a made up word that sounds more impressive than "read it in the bible."
Thanks for the clarification. Whether it's fair or not is not going to make a whole lot of difference when you're standing in front of someone who's sheer power leaves you a quivering heap on the ground. I will remember that when speaking to you in the future.As a God fearing man, I have to say these beliefs are, clearly, based on LOVE.
I'm honestly not sure where you're coming up with that one.
I don't understand how that changes what I wrote. God is God, and I'm not. There's a lot of things I don't understand about the Bible and there are things I take on faith, I've always been straightforward about that. And yeah, I have questions. But there are things I will never know, whether or not I'm a Christian. I have to deal with what Jesus said to do here and now, because that is what I will be held accountable for.
Because it would be dishonest. I'd read the Bible before. Not very often, and not all the way through, but I had read it before and gone to church before. The initial conviction came from the certainty that God was "talking" to me and when I started actually really reading the Bible, then things started to make sense in a way they hadn't before. The way I carry myself and interact with others as a Christian now most certainly does come from the Bible, but the impetus to become a Christian and actually start reading it for myself did not.
As for "coming across so badly," I will admit that, though at times I may lose sight of this, I know full well what it sounds like to a lot of people, especially those who have not had any supernatural experiences themselves, when I start talking about them. I don't, as a rule, come into a conversation talking about them for exactly that reason. And when I do, discussions that had been centered around philosophical points often melt down into accusations about my veracity and sanity. Any respect or reputation that I've managed to build as a thinking person often gets damaged. But I still have to be honest and when people ask me why I believe in God, I have to tell them the truth. There's a whole lot more to the story of why I act the way I do and what I truly believe and whether I really think about all or any of the stuff I say, but people don't want the novel. They want the paragraph, and if they can accept it then they do and if they can't then they don't. So how badly I come across tends to depend on who I'm talking to.
I'm not exactly sure what you meant by that.Sorry you didn't understand. Glad it is always the other guy's perception though. Odd how that works.
Still - keep sticking it to us that you know what god wants and we are going to be punished. Pretty sure the bible tells you to do that and you can probably ignore all the stuff about shaking the dust off your feet. I don't recall asking you why you believe in god actually - that is just a stupid question that will always be answered with a delusion such as you keep repeating over and over and over when no one is asking.
I asked you why you chose to worship such a scum bag as the god you describe to us.
"Fear." I will bear that in mind with your every utterance. Thanks.I understand perfectly Mark.
As usual, you missed my larger point and keyed in on one word that fits what (as far as I can tell) is your pre-conceived notion.
You've read the Bible. You tell me that it doesn't say there will be punishment.
But punishment is not the whole story, not in the Bible and not in my life.I see - the eternal punishment is a small point? Odd you keep bringing it up. Oh - the bible says there is punishment all right. I asked you why you choose to worship such a scum bag. Your answer was "fear."
What larger point is that? That no one asked you why you believe the nonsense you believe? Yet you tell us once again?Okay, before I begin, here's something I'd like to say.
I like you too, Mark. Seriously, I really do. I'm not sure why since we don't agree on hardly anything, but I do. I greatly appreciated the support you showed when my wife passed away.
What you've said to me here is not a whole lot different from things you've said to me all along, so sometimes I have a little trouble telling, and that was why I made the comment about not being sure you liked the "old me" all that much. I am happy to stand corrected.
Okay,
I did not say the eternal punishment is a small point, it is not. But I did say it's not the whole point, it's not. There's a flip side to it, not only the eternal reward but also the joy we can have right here on Earth if we have a real relationship with God. My reference to the "greater point" was actually about that, that those who focus on the eternal punishment are missing so, so much.
Actually Mark, you asked me. And so did JMcFarland. And so have others. You may not like the answer I gave but it is honest. You may think I'm crazy, so be it. But I didn't bring it up capriciously, I was asked.
I really haven't changed. I've talked about all of this before, in other forums. It's just that I don't talk about the same stuff all the time, unlike some (no, that's not a swipe at you.) I try to focus on the actual point at hand, and sometimes it's "is hell real" and sometimes it's "why do you believe" and sometimes it's "is the history of Christianity really just an unending bad thing" and sometimes it's something else. Eventually (and I think sooner rather than later) people will stop trying to convince me that I'm loony because of my experiences, and talk about something else. Then, eventually, someone who hasn't read my old stuff will ask me "why do you believe this?" or more likely "HOW can you believe this?" and it will start all over again.
But no, fear is not the primary motivation for what I think and believe and tell other people.No - I never asked you why you believe. I asked you why you choose to worship such a scum bag.
I'm failing to see the difference. Maybe I just assume that your well-known antipathy to religion means you automatically phrase such questions in that endearing way so I learned to ignore some of the more obstreperous wordings. In any case, I don't see God that way.
Really? You cannot see the difference? How strange that you cannot see that. Honestly - I am not interested in your irrational justifications for believing - I think I have probably heard them all. But - as the only description I have of the Invisible Super Being is the one provided by people such as yourself.:
"someone who's sheer power leaves you a quivering heap on the ground," was a good one. Would you prefer the term "bully," instead of scumbag?
So - this thing offers eternal punishment to people who don't believe you - and you choose to worship it. I guess I wonder how much personal authority you derive from "warning," us about non believing what you say?Okay, let's back up a bit here. Although I do say, have said and will continue to say that eternal punishment does indeed wait for those who don't follow Jesus, there's the flip said. I do say, have said and will continue to say that following Jesus not only means you get eternal reward, but that you can have a real relationship with Him right here and now.
You continually insist on focusing on the negative aspect of the whole thing as if that were the sum total, and I keep saying it's not. And I know you've read it, I've written it often enough in direct response to your posts that you couldn't have missed it if you tried.From what i'm noticing in the discussion, The biggest issue is more of the statement of an eternal punishment that brings a lot of the reaction from some of the atheists than people that discuss more of the rewards and the love.
Now of course I would never attempt to speak for Mark specifically But this is what I've gathered from a lot of his responses in relation to specific posts made by some believers.Sorry - I don't see that as a positive aspect. "Love me or else," is not working for me as a positive aspect. The threat/reward aspect of your beliefs are a major turnoff. No matter the reward.
In any case - I do not believe you when you say you have a personal relationship with a mythical character who most likely did not exist.So I was close to the mark (so to speak) for you with my response?
That is one of many reasons for rejecting that irrational belief system - yes. In conversation with Chris it tend to come up a lot because he is a fan of reminding people of the horrible punishment awaiting non-belief. With other people, it varies depending on their view point.
You think it makes sense? Believe in me or I will punish you? Carrot and stick?Whether it is correct or not, I tend to personally not focus on that aspect of the Bible because it tends to lend itself to fear and hatred. Then again, I have a different point of view on the whole ideal.
That appears to be a leading and loaded question so I will tread as lightly as possible here. What is it that you are asking if I pretend that doesn't exist specifically?
That aspect of the bible. Melissa re-interprets stuff she doesn't like.
There are some aspects that I have examined differently because I don't look at the King James Bible or any of the versions after KJV. As such, I don't believe in a "Hell" or an eternal punishment
I refer to the original Greek and Hebrew translations of the Bible
I studied the translations. Which I understand can be lost in translation. I did go to Bible college for a while and learned some Greek and Hebrew
Because I understand that things can be mistranslated, I can accept the possibility that I am wrong. That is why even though I present my views, I try not to argue them as hard as some others here because I recognize them as only my opinion and belief and as such may not be true. I also understand your views and respect them too.
The original translations are closer to the original message than the others. The KJV was translated from the translations, but some things were added to force conversion by fear (which is not the way it is supposed to be). It's like the telephone game. The message starts out one way, but by the time it gets all the way around the message changes. Words are added, removed, or changed altogether as it is passed along. Like Hell, There is no mention of Hell in the original translations.
Now of course, This explanation lends support as to why follow a book or religion that possibly has been misquoted and mistranslated all across the board. But that is something that Is very difficult to explain in itself (yes I admit it). It basically comes down to each person has their own personal reasons for believing. But even in my belief, I try not to knock any other beliefs or unbeliefs.how can you say that the greek and hebrew are closer to the original message when we have no way to tell what the original message was?
What I have reasoned (and yes I understand that I could be wrong) is that since these were the earliest recorded translations of the Bible and they were divinely inspired that They would possibly have the closest idea of the original message. Like I stated before, It's like the telephone game. If I start the game and whisper a message in your ear and the message goes through 20 people, the 20th person could have a totally different message, but to find out the original message (if I left the room), they would turn to you because you were the earliest recipient of the original message. Now of course, You could have missed a word or two too, but you at least had the closed idea of the original message (other than the originator of the message).
Because even though you might have missed the message yourself you would be considered the most reliable source other than the original
the problem with your analogy is that, by a moderate dating of the gospels, the telephone game had already been going on for 30-40 years before any of the gospels were ever written down. Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark. Luke also copies from matthew, and then John is nothing like the other 3. Not only do you have a 40+ year game of telephone, you have the other three writers (whoever they were) who copied from the earlier versions. None of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. by the time the gospels were written down, they were also 40-100+ years into the telephone game. From there, they were copied and the scribes made errors (this is well known. In fact, there are more discrepancies in the new testament copies that survive than there are WORDS in the new testament.) Then there were translations of copies of copies - and so forth and so on. I actually DO read greek and hebrew. Being able to read those languages, however, says nothing about the original message. The game of telephone is notoriously non reliable. The complete new testaments don't start appearing until 3-400 years after the books were written. We have no originals. We have quotes from the early church fathers that reference gospels, but none of them match up exactly with anything that we do have. The earliest fragment that exists is the p52 fragment, and it dates around 120-150AD and the only complete word on the entire fragment is the word "and". Sure, there are a lot of copies - but the majority of those copies in existence now date to around 800-900 AD - and 900 years after the fact simply doesn't add up to reliable anymore.
Which of course I can understand that, which is why I can understand and entertain the possibility that I could be wrong. But again I don't strictly hold to the bible as being correct. But of course I'm not going to go into a lot of details about my actual beliefs because I wouldn't want to bore you nor really jump into a debate with everyone.
so really, in order for your game of telephone to be considered accurately - you're not asking the first person you're whispering your secret to. You're asking the last person on the chain's children - if not grandchildren after the story has been told, retold, revisited and passed down for one to two generations. If you were to tell your child a story today (I don't know if you have kids, just using an analogy) and repeated the story a few times (each time, with a slight variation of the details, because that's what human beings do) and then your children had children and passed on the story to them, how reliable do you think the story would be 70 years later? Would it match up to what really happened - or could you remember what really happened at all?
Actually, most modern translations are done directly from the source material as best it can be done.
What stuff was added to induce fear? Got some sources?Closer in time to the original message? I think that is not what you meant.
It is really easy to explain why the book has been misquoted and mistranslated.
I think it is fantastic that you know what the original message was. Care to explain to us?I never said I knew what the original message was. Nor did I imply that. As I stated to JM, It's like the telephone game. If I start the game and whisper the initial message to the next person (you for instance) and the message gets through 20 people. By the time it gets to the 20th person, the message may be something totally different. So If I (as the originator of the message) left the room at the end of the game, You would then become the most reliable source for the original message because you were the first recipient. Is it possible that you might have heard wrong? yes, But you would still be considered the most reliable source other than the originator of the message
So - you don't know what the message is - you are just guessing that the older translation is more accurate. And as you cannot read the languages concerned - you are simply relying on some one else's translation.
As the KJ was translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew - it is no further away from the "original," than any other. So - I ask you again - why choose another translation?Even with the KJ being translated from the Greek and Hebrew, It becomes a translation of a translation and as such (to me) may not be as certain. So the KJV would be the third person in the game. Also the KJV added details that were not in the Greek and Hebrew (namely Hell as an example). With the addition of this ideal, religion became even more of a dogmatic institution that now works to convert people by using fear then force (Which, as you constantly and eloquently point out
causes so many fights and wars- no sarcasm meant). Don't get me wrong, I read more and different versions and translations but I look at the variations between the Greek and Hebrew translations and the other versions to try to get as much understanding as I can.
Again, I understand that I could be wrong with my understanding (I am no genius after all), but as I keep learning and seeking information, my understanding increases. If faced with proof that God does not exist (No I am not reopening that discussion because that is a stalemated discussion), I can still be satisfied that I lived a life as best as I can. But I do not live my life in a dogmatic fear of a place that doesn't exist, nor do I operate as if someone on high is watching my every move.So - you do speak ancient Greek and Hebrew? Or are you getting a translation by some one else?
This (to me) is no different than people relying on a scientist's interpretation of events based on data collected. As more information is collected, more information is added and reinterpreted by whoever looks at it and their following conclusions.
And this is another discussion that would get stalemated because of perspective.
No - not really. Science is testable. Irrational beliefs are not. You saying they are the same does not change that.
Not all scientific things are testable. and even then you can test certain things back to the earliest recorded origin.. Which ironically is someone either stumbling upon something and stating "hey this is what I think" and giving it a name. So you saying that it is testable doesn't change the fact that it still boiled down to someone looking at data collected and forming an idea of what happened based on data collected.. Once again. Science doesn't answer everything and you stating that it is more testable than religion does not change that fact..
Give me an example of scientific principle and the actual origins of it.. Not what someone actually wrote.. the real origins.. And prove it
What do you mean - origins? That sounds like a religious term. How can I show you the "origins," of evolution?
Origin is not religious at all. It is defined as something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: .. You mentioned evolution as science and, as such, testable did you not?.. So test it to its origin.. You chose evolution, so let's see it
Don't worry, I'll waitSo you state that evolution (a theory) is real.. Since it is real (to you) you should be able to prove it's real by tracing it back to the very beginning. So Prove it to me. I say it isn't real, Prove that it is. Where did it come from? where did it begin?
Again, convince me that evolution is real by showing me something other than what someone who studied old bones has written up. Your own personal proof of evolutionSorry - why should I be able to trace it back to the very beginning for it to be real? Can't I just give you the proof that it is real and that we can replicate the process in a lab?
My own personal proof? How can I do that exactly? Why would you want that?Why not use the biologist's who study it proof? They have made it widely available so you can study it yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar … opic_id=62
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ution.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
And if you want a more full explanation with better links:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572
See me in a week or so.In my opinion, only someone who wants to deal in absolutes would want to call evolution "real."
Evolution, surely, is a theory. It fits into many other hypotheses quite well I guess. And if there is a "creator" of our finite universe, that creator quite probably used the evolutionary process to "begat" us in time.
Who has brought in this need to accept or reject evolution? Does it help christian people to convince non-christians? Does it give christians a better standing in their god's eyes? Much better surely to revel in the wonders and just observe how things work. You can get inspiration instead of exasperation.Why should you be able to trace it back to the very beginning for it to be real?? Because you said it is real and "The burden of proof is on you" (sound familiar?) replicate the process in a lab? Ha!! That's a laugh. the only replicating in a lab can do is to test and "prove what another person drew a conclusion of with "evidence of the research they found" (similar to a Christian finding scriptures to back up their claims). How can I trust a hundreds of years old writing of one person's story to prove what happened millions of years before that?? No more so than I can take a 2,000 year old book and do the same
And these links only lead me to more words and writings from scientists who study it.. That's like me sending you to theologians to examine the proof in the bible...
I can send you to websites that point to theology with their studies as well..
Sorry, You have still proven nothing to me from your own observation and study of science, therefore I can dismiss it and state that it isn't real. You have taken the word of others about events, just like a lot of Christians. You may not agree with me and that's fine. That's why I stated that this debate will become stalemated.
By the way, A theory is nothing but a fancy word for belief and by definition can be linked.. There is no difference..
I don't need to see you in a week or two to read what could actually turn out to be drivel as well.. humans are flawed you knowSorry you don't understand the word "theory," as it applies in the scientific arena. Oh well
