Hello Christians. You FOOLS, (for Christ).
Please join me in having a private discussion.
It can be about anything you want, and you should feel safe.
No Atheist (should) enter this because not ONE of them is a fool.
Let's kick it off with asserting that God, the Father fo our Lord Jesus Christ is creator of all things!!
What can you add to this discussion?
Amen, what else can be added?
Yep, I'm a fool for Christ, which is better than just being a fool.
Agreed, not much, so there is no need to comment on the "fool" accusations.
At the very least, science would have a whole lot more to talk about when discussing our world.
I think the comparison is a shining example of the intellectual state of both schools of thought, or lack thereof.
Amen to being a fool for Jesus!
In that we have Peace and Joy and Hope.
Unlike those whom the Bible says are fools who say in their hearts that there is no God.
yes my fellow fool, He's also the beginning and the end....
1Co_1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
I buy a new King James the first of the year and read the book all over again as my New Year's resolution. I need a new one because my old ones are all marked up.
So I read several chapters in the OT and several chapters in the NT every day. Coincidentally, yesterday I finished Romans and today started on 1 Corinthians.
I highlighted 1 Corinthians 1:23. That was before I read this thread. "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness."
Read it and weep. No wait, there are no atheists reading this thread.
Why do christians seem to think its them against athiests?
As if christanity were the only religion.
There are in fact many other religions, even including the non-Abrahamic ones
Of course there is. And you believe in a girl God named Kali, right?
I would rather believe in a religion where i am judged for my actions, and not "saved" mearly by believing that someone died on a cross for my sins
No one can merit anything by their actions.....compared to God we are like an ant, created by him we can do nothing without him. It's only by his grace we are alive and continue to be......
Yes we have free will, that is also given by him. I'm saying that you can't earn your way to heaven because we are not worthy.
Well that wasnt what you said. You said we can do nothing without god. Thus no free will
lol, that's not how it works.
If your child asks for an orange, did the parent make that decision?
God gives us all kinds of choices..
Everyone has this silly notion that free will means "no limitation" or some similar idea.
You can't do ANYTHING without the sun. It's the primary source for every solitary ounce of energy that we use.
Does that mean it dictates your personal choices?
If I ever need a PR director, I'll be requesting your resume.
This was a brilliant spin.
The Sun is the Light unto the World; the World of Reality as seen in the Light of Day,; there having been a second Great Light separated out from in between Night & Day when the Day was separated from the Night.
This second Great Light, Twice Light, being a mere Reflection, Illusion of the Light of Reality, providing an Imitation of the Light of Day, said Light having a Dual Quality being the cause of Insanity, Moon Madness, Duplicity, Guilefulness, the cause of man allowing for thinly veiled Shadowy figures to lurk in the Darkest corners of the Mind; said Area governed by the Illusionary Light of the Sun, Twice Light being thrust into the Lime Light as the Twilight Zone.
@black girl god kali is always better than boy god jesus...atleast noone dares to hang kali....anyways it is never christian v/s atheist...christianity is too young as religion ...atheism exist since humans invented religion and people who didnt believe in it....it is as old as first religion...so it is conflict of thought...religions kept getting invented and died out...atheism remained firm against every religion...
It's pretty rare to hear other religions condescendingly bad-talk Christianity. Ditto rare to hear atheists condescendingly bad-talk religions other than Christianity.
You do, however, get cases of Christians condescendinly bad-talking other religions. I, personally, endeavor not to be one of them.
Nah, I've seen a few Muslims pop into the forums over the years and they get the same treatment. I think that since the preponderance of proselytizing, preaching and justification of positions, points and politics on the forums happens to come from Christians, it only SEEMS like Christians are the ones always under attack. While they are more often the target of atheist diatribes, its because there are more of them to target. You can't blame a guy for catching trout in a trout pond.
I will condescendingly bad-talk anyone's Invisible Super Being. The Islamists generally have trouble with English comprehension though - well - ESL trouble rather than semantic trouble.
Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind........ (pun intended)
I see you consider yourself part of the fools club.
You know that you fall into the other fools category, though? Right?
Of course aka. Your religion is all about dividing people - I get that - thanks for explaining. "If I am not with you - I am against you," is one of your mantras - right?
Are you starting to understand why I don't like your religion?
I don't have a religion.
Are YOU starting to get that yet?
Will your parenting hub be ready soo?
I'm looking forward to read all about how to raise children according to Mark.
Obviously, the RIGHT way.
Waiting for the link!
How to raise a child? That I can tell you, stone him.
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father
and mother and will not listen to them when they
discipline him, 19his father and mother shall take
hold of him and bring him to the elders at the
gate of his town. 20They shall say to the elders,
"This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a
drunkard." 21Then all the men of his town shall
stone him to death. You must purge the evil from
among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid."
Child, and the words drunkard and profligate don't fit too well together somehow, do they?
You think this is talking about a kid 10 or 12 years old?
Perhaps you should learn to quote things in context.
On the converse, we have really lax laws that are meant to "rehabilitate" criminals, yet, the jails are full. They are overflowing. New ones have to be built, so they can be housed, and then trained to be (more) hardened criminals.
Kids today are being raised so wonderfully.
We have 17 year olds raping 84 year old women.
We have gangs of pree-teens assaulting/killing elderly folk on the street.
Drug abuse is at al all time high, to the point where law enforcement is not even scratching the surface of the problem.
Love the alternative option.
What kind of world are we leaving behind for our grandkids to "enjoy"??
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman
controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.
You do have a religion aka.
You get your morals from a majik book.
I have Jesus.
Who/what do you have?
Where do your morals come from?
Is your hub ready yet?
No - you have religion.
I have reality.
A mixture or my personal values combined with legal and cultural influences.
No - I have no intention of writing anything at your behest.
Wow! Mark! It's been a long time! So good to see you around!
I think you are confusing me with YOU.
You HAD religion, and rebelled against it.
You went for atheism, I went for Jesus.
I know you don't like to hear that, but the sad truth is, that after all these years, you are still CLUELESS about what I just said.
Jesus is not a religion, He is God. Son of the Father, saviour of mankind and coming King.
So - you have religion. You are the one who is clueless about what you just said. see how preaching that the King is coming back is actually religion? If you kept this Jesus person in your head - where it belongs - you would have Jesus - what you got is religion.
I don't need saving by majik - neither do you. I had no religion and I did not rebel - I simply rejected the nonsense that people like you tried to fill my head with.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god - there are no other philosophies attached. As you do - I determine my own morals based on subjective triggers and cultural biases. Your majik book says to set Hebrew slaves free after 6 years. My morals and cultural conditioning tell me it is wrong to own slaves directly - we are taught to enslave people by debt and restricting natural resources instead of direct ownership.
If only that were true. Atheism, of the class you belong to is not content to just have lack of belief, but to destroy the faith of those who do.
What exactly does Hebrew slave laws have to do with me, and my morality?
If your morals come from cultural conditioning, then you hold many "christian" morals, because a majority of the western world was built on them.
Indirectly, you got your morals from the same place we all do. God Himself, as revealed in scripture.
Is the "Golden Rule" universal, or just local/cultural?
What Golden Rule is this?
Destroy faith? How so?
Not sure what your point is aka. Did you not read the bible?
You don't know the Golden Rule! I thought you were intelligent and all knowledgeable! It seems you don't know everything, just what you think you know is all there is!
I'm sure you DO know what what my point is, but, as usual, you evade the real issues!
It seems YOU the one who did not read the Bible, only hearsay!
Why DID you answer the call to the FOOL thread? I thought you resented titles and tags like that?
No answers to my questions then?
Still - what do you think about slavery? As the bible condones it - is it morally acceptable to you or not?
We can play "answer my question, before I answer yours" tag all night.
I'm not playing.
So, why are you in the fool thread?
(The Bible condones that too).
Do you accept the title?
Hey Mark Knowles, did your ancestors fight for the North or the South in the Civil War?
Back in the days of Moses, many Hebrews sold themselves into slavery because they were too poor to support their family. So in doing so, they put themselves in a better position. That seems to be morally acceptable to me.
So - slavery is morally acceptable? OK then. Thanks for that.
Twisting it again Mark, he said that it was a better condition to be a 'slave' to feed your family, than to be starving to death.
Modern day slavery works for the same reasons, it's just that nowadays sheeple willingly enslave themselves to a world system in order to achieve the same result, feeding their family.
Of course Masters of the Universe such as yourself will not understand that as your income derives from the worlds slaves clicking your blogs and drooling over all the expensive goodies they will never afford, still, you do provide entertainment for the slaves and keep them docile for their masters.
Hey Mark Knowles, if Kate Upton enslaved you by handcuffing you to her bed, would that be morally acceptable?
You have a myth whose words, written by ignorant men were immoral.
You are so double standard!
If morality doesn't come from a (any) book, but everyone makes up their own, how come that's good for you, but wrong for someone else?
Because your book does not teach morals, quite the opposite, in fact.
I wonder why burden of proof only applies to Christians? Apparently only you guys are allowed to make extremely sweeping subjective generalizations without providing the merest whiff of evidence.
It applies to anyone making claims, especially when the claim is extraordinary in which extraordinary evidence is required.
Ok, I'm patiently awaiting your extraordinary evidence that the Bible teaches immorality.
Or evidence for any of the claims you make, for that matter. You tend to back up your statements least frequently of all the atheist posters here. "Lies" this, "evil" that, "abuse" the other thing, practically everything you say is a subjective premise presented as a foregone conclusion.
You can't be serious. Not only have so many such quotes from the bible have been placed here for all to read, there are all kinds of discussions going on about slavery, misogyny, homosexuality, etc. not to mention the fact believers spewing threats of hellfire and calling us evil. And, that's just the mild stuff, then there are those who really show us religious insanity.
Yes, I understand how many things that are so blatantly obvious to others completely elude believers who embrace them as truth.
That does not answer my question.
It only expresses your bias!
Please disclose your sources of (acceptable and good) morality!
If you'd have said "my head", I would have thought it acceptable, but EVOLUTION?
You can't be serious? Then again, you probably are.
If I apply your reasonng then, anything is as good as anything else.
Including a (religious) Book, that may well have "evolved" with society!
Of course, I'm serious. Sorry, if you're unable to grasp evolution and all it explains.
Of course it's false!
You were not the one to think of it.
So, please explain, once more for us deluded dummies, why your morals are better than mine, IF evolution were the source?
You CAN do that much, can't you?
We both share the same evolved morals, however you've been indoctrinated to believe in ditching those morals for biblical garbage.
In fact, you would automatically react the very same way as anyone else if you didn't have the time to think about the biblical garbage, even though you may propagate that garbage here.
Boy TM, you are really clutching at straws with this crazy 'logic' - you really want to try and convince the world that morals EVOLVED?
You need to travel a bit, and see how lacking in evolutionary growth the morals of some places are.
For all it's faults, the British Empire took Gods morals codes with it wherever it went (we also abused them, to save you the time in pointing it out) and as those moral codes were enforced by British law (which IS based upon the bible) Indians stopped burning their widows on the husbands funeral pyre, cannibals stopped eating their victims, and warlords were controlled from doing as they wished to their subjects.
Since we stopped 'exploiting the natives' of 2/3rds of the world, a large number of those 'evolved morals' have crept back into their systems, as Christ was replaced by the local versions of gods.
You really MUST be getting desperate to print such rubbish and hope to get away with it.
Convincing those who defend their religious beliefs at any cost and who don't have any understanding of evolution is not clutching at straws.
You need to understand evolution. I have travelled.
Like I said, you will say anything to defend your religious beliefs, no matter what the cost.
Evolution seems to teach us that the ideal life form is a voracious predator, given that, for example, sharks and alligators are among the most primitive and unchanged animals in existence.
Should we all become voracious predators too? Is that the moral of natural selection?
The fossil record.
Sharks have remained largely unchanged for ~300 million years, alligators for ~200 million. Lack of change seems to imply that they are already an optimal organism that needs no further adaptation to ensure its continued survival.
And evolution in general says that only the strong survive. Doesn't sound like a good basis for morality.
Morality is a human conception that we have created. Whoever is best suited to their environment will survive. Of course, our knowledge of medicine, diet, our ability to create warm clothes and climatised living environments helps those who are not suited to their environment to continue reproducing.
Our civilised culture has lessened the need to be strong although if it ever came to a point where food was scarce, the strong would end up winning.
The rich may take an early lead in hoarding food and keeping it from the poor, but eventually the strong will overcome the weak regardless of wealth.
It is the same in any species. I find it really interesting even though it really isn't.
Whew, glad about that, so "Morality is a human conception that we have created" and "if it ever came to a point where food was scarce, the strong would end up winning."
Nice thinking, really shows where you are coming from... (just saying)
So in effect, should you atheists ever manage to convince we Christians that we are wrong, you are toast, because without that 'morality' which was God given, I doubt any of you would survive "if it ever came to a point where food was scarce".
Matthew 25 would be right out of the window...
No - he is saying that you Christians would throw your fake morals out the window. You just crow about how self righteous you are and behave as "badly," as everyone else.
Not seeing the 13 billion self professed Christians behaving any differently to us atheists actually.
If anything you are worse. At least us atheists don't claim to be doing something better. This is why your religion causes so much ill will. It is divisive "us and "them," tribal thinking.
You are more interested in telling us wot god sed than actually demonstrating moral living. Got to say - - thanks. It is people like yourself crowing about how much better they are and behaving badly that convinced me your religion was hypocritical nonsense.
Its a shame really - if you put your majik book down and learned some morality - you could actually do some good. Instead you absolve yourself of all responsibility and blame the rotten atheists for the state the world is in.
I agree with you on one point,
the "us and them". With the clarification that we, in the "us" group were ALL it the "them" group, until we responded to the message of the "us" group.
We then used our free will and chose God, who is calling all "them" to Himself, but all them who do not respond to the call, hurle abuse at "us", out of sheer anger for having rejected God's call.
Hence, blaming all the world's woes on "us", instead of everyone, since we ALL are responsible for the collective that both "us" AND "them" are living in.
So, the "us and them" mentality is ALWAYS with "them"!
Aka - I think you need to accept responsibility for dividing yourself off from the rest of us and creating the "us and them" mentality that you have created. Rather than blaming those who do not join you. Don't you?
This is why your religion causes so many fights. You have no moral code and you refuse to accept responsibility for your actions. Disgusting.
Aka did accept responsibility, he clearly stated that he (like all of us) was born as a 'them' (the world system) and chose to leave 'them' to become 'us' (those who now reside in the Kingdom of God).
He could not have been clearer.
You may see that as divisive, and it is divisive, it separates those who have chosen God from those who have chosen the world.
The rest of your post was more copy and paste garbage, especially as it is Gods distinct moral codes that you so rebel against and which challenge you.
But full marks for at least attempting a credible answer before you resorted to copy and paste garbage.
No - he blames those of us who do not join you as the problem. This is why your religion causes so many fights.
No, YOU are the one blaming "us", and separating yourself as part of "them".
Don't blame me for YOUR rejection!
So - you are not at fault then? You did not separate yourself off and create an "us and them" situation?
I separated myself from "them" 35+ years ago.
L-O-N-G before I met you. Not to mention, half a world away.
Neither did I do it to create any rift. I just loved Him for doing what He did for me.
He has proven Himself faithful to me, ever since!
As I said, YOU choose to be part of "us", or "them", YOU.
It has nothing to do with my thinking it is a natural fact that can be seen in human history and also in todays animal kingdom.
As for you claiming I am amoral, I put it to you that I don't think it is moral to stone rape victims to death and murder non believers of your religion.
Morals are not god given. The god of the bible is a sadistic arsehole that flooded the entire planet to kill everyone. Yeah, now that's moral huh?
This is more to the core of how it works, but the "strong" are always a collective, never an individual, at least not for long.
Morality is a social construct that is both afforded by and facilitating of cooperative behavior, and no creature has been more successful at it than humans. There is advantage to working together, not hording, not being selfish, not taking all the women to yourself. It is a luxury to a point, but the thing is, humans, normal ones, are genetically pre-disposed to social behavior (that is the "sense of right and wrong" thing that NORMAL humans all have across the whole planet).
So "might makes right" doesn't totally work except in extreme cases of privation. And even that fails in time. Too much might make right is total anarchy. No one is strong enough to do that alone. I might be able to beat all of you down individually and take all the food and resources for a time, but at some point, all of you will work together to take me down if I'm that hardcore. Which means, I have to start sharing resources with some allies to help me defend against you and your attacks.
BOOM, there went anarchy. A new social order arises (a new tribe, new nation, new culture etc.). We'll make new holy books to strengthen the rules and explain why we are the chosen people who got to survive and why all the people who we defeated or at least held at bay long enough for them to go away were the losers. They weren't chosen, etc. Every single culture throughout all of history in every continent in every epoch of history (recorded well or partially) always, always has done this exact thing, every time with no exception for anyone who has taken any time to look into it honestly. Which is why when I see people clinging to one religion or another I just roll my eyes and sigh.
"...humans, normal ones, are genetically pre-disposed to social behavior (that is the "sense of right and wrong" thing that NORMAL humans all have across the whole planet)."
What about those who are sub normal or above normal, where does their 'moral code' differ, how were they either blessed less or blessed more with this 'genetic moral code' (and who actually blessed them with a genetic code, or did morality just spring up from no morality?)
Both levels of abnormality are liable to ignore your 'genetic morality' and abuse the system from different extremes.
Why did the 'genetic morality' not work in them, and for that matter if we are talking evolved genetic tendencies, surely the above normal human would have thrived and spread his or her genetic pool wider than the normals, and the sub normals would have died out, being less capable of surviving in 'normal' society and especially against the above normals.
Sorry, can't buy it.....people developed a moral code from genetically imprinted morality AND THEN invented religions to explain why basic morality is governed by the golden rule, that does not make sense.
I'm not a normal, never have been, never would be, for no genetic reason I was blessed from the day I was born, considered myself as above normal and abused that blessing (or could it be a curse?) from the day I made my first deal, and had no regard for any 'moral code' before I was 40 years old.
But when I came to faith, I FOUND a moral code that I recognised as good enough for me to bind myself to it, and keep to it's tenets and rules.
It was finding God that gave me morality, genetically and educationally I should be a warehouseman or manual worker, God had other ideas, and I thank Him daily that I broke free from the world system that does not recognise Him.
You are sooooo close to actually getting here. I'm actually very excited for you right now.
Okay, so, as you point out, why didn't the hyper-social people make it? And also, why didn't the anti-social people make it? Why didn't either spread their genetic material into the human populace that evolved?
Answer: Hyper-social people (people who are TOO nice) get taken advantage of by the "normal" primitive monkey ancestors. I'm hungry. You are going to give me all your food, and let me bang your woman? SWEET! I will. Guess who doesn't survive very long?
Anti-social behavior doesn't work either. You get all hostile and etc., you don't pan out either. The degrees of this are still playing out in our culture, and your religion works very hard to help people try to see what that behavior looks like. We all fight these tendencies. The people who cant fight them off get killed or tossed in prison. The irony of all that is that, the hyper-social people inject enough of their dna into the system to create a world where we don't axe those anti-social people the moment they do something bad. Which actually works out for us all, because we all live on the continuum.
So, you have a Bronze Age book that grapples with all that. It's great. Proves how insightful man was, even 3,000 years ago. But, yeah, mostly total fail today.
There's no "blessed" or "not blessed." I mean, I see where you are coming from with it. The more kind people are "blessed" and the douchey people are satan spawned or whatever. But, well, while it technically works, it's kind of a lame story 3,000 years later. It was a great shot at codifying it all, written by really clever, intelligent people, but, well, we really can do better now.
Which came first, the cup or thirst?
Have a look at the bold text and underlines in your quote above.
I realize this all matters a lot to you, but you should at least know that, when you really got to the end of this, the part where you really started trying to preach why God is all that stuff that matters, you used "I" and "Me" and "Myself" 15 times in about 120 words... just under 15% of your statement was about YOU. You only mention "God" or "Him" four times. Are you sure this is all really about God?
I have trouble telling them apart. Sometimes I seem to be talking to god - other times it is aguasilver. He does seem to know what god wants and god seems very, very upset that I have rebelled against his law. Or is it aguasilver's law? Hard to tell.
It should be like that.
God's law becomes HIS law, and when it does, you are indeed facing God, and not aguasilver.
Gee! Finally, your perceptions are working FOR you, and against you (at the same time)!
So - are you also qualified to speak for god - or should I be listening to aguasilver speaking for god?
Am I speaking to god now or is it you? I am all confused again.
You have been confused for a long time Mark....
I am delighted if you see God when a believer speaks to you, that's what the world is supposed to see, because anything which stands between God and the world is not as it should be.
If you stay until the end, you will see what we mean...
Actually no - I am not confused at all. I see a believer who thinks he is talking for god. Two of you it seems. Well - of course you have the Mormons and the Muslims who are also speaking for god - but they are telling me you guys are wrong. As do my Catholic friends - they are also speaking for god, but they say you guys are going to burn.
This is why your religion causes so many fights and I reject the lot of you.
Trust me - if you are genuinely representative of this god you claim to be speaking for - I prefer the fiery pit.
If that is so, why keep blaming "us", since you have made YOUR choice VERY clear?
Burn you choose, burn you will!
LIFE you choose, LIVE you will!
Thanks for making my point about how divisive your religion is.
Yes Christ is divisive, He divides the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares and the saved from the lost.
Like the homosexual advert says.... Get over it.
It's YOUR choice, we made ours.
No - you are divisive. You. Accept responsibility for your actions instead of blaming an Invisible dead gay guy. Seriously.
Like I said Mark, get over it, you are the one who chose to rebel against God, you live and die with it, stooping to derisive comments about Christ will not rile me up to rally to your bait.
This dogs stopped chasing the stick.
I am totally responsible for my actions, just as you are for yours, and as you stated you will continue to stalk my posts, I will continue to point out what GOD states about you.
When I start trying to pour scorn on your posts that are not directed at me, you can complain, until then do as you will, stalk me all over the forums, I care not, I will answer your inane repetitious comments as I see fit.
I may never penetrate your thick skin of rebellion, but you will never be able to say you were not told.
Yes - this would be why you cause so much ill will and hatred. You. Odd you keep blaming the Invisible Super Being for our conflict.
How odd you cannot accept responsibility for it yourself. I rebel against no one. I reject your nonsense for what it is.
Do you tell this to little children? Oh wait - yes - these are open to children - how very brave of you. I totally understand why you hide where you do.
I think you hit the nail on the head!
God is not the author of confusion, so you might ask Him, to clarify which part is He, and which part is me!
It is all you aka.
This is why your religion causes so many fights. You.
I had NO conflict till YOU created it.
If I remember correctly, YOU were one of my first and LOUDEST attackers in my early days on Hubpages.
The conflict you (so rightly) highlight is in fact there.
It's been there since the fall of man (you know, the Adam & Eve story).
The fact that you try and push it onto me, personally is just an emotive, and childish attempt at getting a response you can argue against even more.
The conflict was there all along, before you were born, and it will be after you die.
Accept it, deal with it, and choose your team. It's NOT TOO LATE!
Jesus is still calling you (people) to Himself, and transforming lives for good!
Nice try, but not quite worth a cigar!
But guess what, I was one of those "douchey people who are satan spawned" for the first 42 years of life, God had blessed me, but I just abused the blessing and did all those douchey things that satan spawned folk do, it took recognising Christ to stop that behaviour, and yes prior to that I was definitely destined to be excluded from God.
The He and I aspect is kinda natural when someone is talking about how they broke free and found Him, I could have put a whole lot of His words into it to make it look better to your eye, but it was a personal account, have no fear, God features prominently when I actually preach.
I did not say hyper-social or anti-social, I said sub normal; being less than the norm, and above normal; being better than the norm.
Sub normal folk tend to be as destructive as above normal folk, just in different ways.
Neither are understood or liked by the normals, who KNOW that both ends of the scale represent a threat to normal, and folk HATE things that threaten their normality, even if sometimes they like to idolise the above normals who make celebrity, or hang out 'slumming' with the sub normals for kicks.
Thankfully most folk are normals, and therefore the subs and the above can exist quite easily on the backs of the normals demands for normality.
This has not changed in the last 3000 years, the key biblical figures were all above and sub normals who were reined in by God to do His purposes, or above and sub normals who were used by the enemy to spread chaos.
1 Samuel 22
SO DAVID departed and escaped to the cave of Adullam: and when his brothers and all his father's house heard it, they went down there to him.
And everyone in distress or in debt or discontented gathered to him, and he became a commander over them. And there were with him about 400 men.
God uses those who will serve Him.
Amplified Bible (AMP)
And Moab said to the elders of Midian, Now will this multitude lick up all that is round about us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field.
So Balak son of Zippor, the king of the Moabites at that time, sent messengers to Balaam [a foreteller of events] son of Beor at Pethor, which is by the [Euphrates] River, even to the land of the children of his people, to say to him, There is a people come out from Egypt; behold, they cover the face of the earth and they have settled down and dwell opposite me.
Now come, I beg of you, curse this people for me, for they are too powerful for me. Perhaps I may be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land, for I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.
Still happening today.
The irony is that God can turn bad to good:
Numbers 23 8
How can I curse those God has not cursed? Or how can I [violently] denounce those the Lord has not denounced?
For from the top of the rocks I see Israel, and from the hills I behold him. Behold, the people [of Israel] shall [a]dwell alone and shall not be reckoned and esteemed among the nations.
Who can count the dust (the descendants) of Jacob and the number of the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous [those who are upright and in right standing with God], and let my last end be like theirs!
And Balak said to Balaam, What have you done to me? I brought you to curse my enemies, and here you have [thoroughly] blessed them instead!
And Balaam answered, Must I not be obedient and speak what the Lord has put in my mouth?
God does actually control what happens, and generally keeps the normals safe, but it's those normals in the middle, the sheeple, who get manipulated and deceived by any above or sub who does not know God and has not been reined in to serve Gods purposes.
Is the picture clearing a little now?
Are you familiar with the term "begging the question?"
OK, just answer the relevant section, do you understand the following:
You of course understand that your change in description also changed the context of what was said?
You obviously see anyone who is not 'normal' (in your opinion) as being either 'hyper-social' which you define to mean 'too nice' or 'anti-social' which you see as a derogatory state to be in.
The fact is that they are the wrong definitions of what subs or aboves actually are.
Assuming that you are a normal, that is understandable, but to attempt to illustrate it. lets say the three states are represented by animals.
A sub normal, we shall say is a hyena, which hunt in packs and take for prey those who they may that are in any way unable to defend themselves.
A normal is (in this scenario) a wilder-beast, which run as a herd and are formidable IF they will attack in formation, but rarely do and thus allow their weak to become prey.
An above, is represented here by the lion, a predator who will kill at will to eat and fears nothing except maybe elephants, they hunt in packs or singularly and choose their victims by selecting the slowest and easiest kill.
Can you begin to see why your definitions are inadequate to describe this situation?
What's ironic is that you ask that question and are oblivious to the fact those situations don't adequately defend your religious beliefs.
TM, I don't care what you think of my beliefs, I have made my decision, and you have or will make yours, and we live and die by what we decide.
Goodnight, 2am here and bedtime.
I wouldn't care about your superstitious beliefs either, if you had the decency to keep them out of the public square, that is. But instead, you would much rather inflict them upon us like some sad, immature bully on a kindergarten playground.
Did you not get the memo about freedom of speech & expression of the common people? Should they keep said "superstitious beliefs" out of the public arena, you would also be excluded from the public arena, Mr Knowles. You would become inherently, err, extinct. Hurrah for evolution ! [a superstitious belief system based on finding bones and something called carbon dating that cannot be proven -ever.]
Come now, fella, show us that real, genuine, humanistic thing called tolerance-in- peace, which you so venomously protect and promote. Pretty please.
Did you get the memo that telling people they'll burn in hell for eternity for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savoir has nothing to do with freedom of speech and expression?
By all means, you are welcome to step into any public square and demonstrate your complete denial of fact and look entirely the fool.
Err, and precisely when did I ever suggest doing or needing such a thing or there being such a place?
Err, evolution is not a fact or even a remote series of probable facts. You know this already. Evolution is just another denomination within the religion of equation (science). Liken it to Evangelical Christianity. Lot of hoot-holler with no real sustenance, a lot of sweaty eyebrows and cheers from the faithful flock, high on hype and Paxil.
Lastly, some of the greatest thinkers in human history -meaning real thinkers/philosophers- were called worse than fools. Thousands of years later, they are still called names -some call them fools, others geniuses, still others remarkably ahead of their 'time'. I am glad to even be able to read their works and considerations with an unbiased eye.
Ha! Preach on, brother, preach on!
Due diligence then, yes?
Show just the facts. As you have said many times: The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You make the claim evolution IS -emphatically- fact.
I will wager, you have no such fact; merely religious speculation, without a shred of experience and actual documentation, apart from theorum, to support the claim. in philosophy, we call that majik.
The world majikally appeared and majikally began -for no reason at all- to begin this so-called process of evolution.
In actuality, all elements regarding evolution point to the reverse of the concept/theory: humanity and the planet is devolving, not evolving.
And the only true fact concerning the religion titled evolution is this: it is just another branch of theology -using equation (not logic in any measure) to make people believe it.
I think the phrase I am looking for here is: "Technological Folk Lore"
What's really intellectually dishonest about that is the fact you know nothing about evolution, or the fact that every single facet of science agrees with it.
Here is a small list of articles for evolution, 1.34 million articles to be more specific.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evi … CCIQgQMwAA
The irony here is that you guys are actually making ALL the references to folk burning in hell.
I guess you are REALLY not 100% secure in your beliefs if it affects you that much.
At this point some of us feel real sympathy for you POOR victims.
If you actually did have any sympathy, you wouldn't be inflicting your irrational beliefs on people.
Now your INFLICTED UPON!
You came to the fool thread, and you still complain.
That proves that you are in the right forum thread, just in the OTHER camp of fools!
BTW, if I didn't have sympathy, I would not BOTHER sharing the GOOD NEWS of the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ!
I can't help if you are so emotionally weak that it offends you.
See, that's what happens to someone who is OVERLY dependant on logic, reason and intellect alone.
They loose touch with their true emotions, and become copycat robots.
I have real sympathy for you. I FEEL for you!
Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population by region
1.Southern Africa 37.3 32
2.Central America 29.3 25
3.South America 25.9 21
Isn't it odd how highly religious countries make up the top 3 for highest murder rates in the world and west and central europe, what with all their non believers (50% in the uk)is right at the bottom of the list at only 1.2 per 10k people.
I would've thought that all us amoral atheists would increase the murder rate compared to all the religious countries what with all their god given morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … icide_rate
The regions with the highest homicide rates tend to be developing countries. I'm inclined to assume that's a stronger factor than religion or lack thereof.
I'll even concede that developing countries tend to be more religious, but that's hardly a good reason to start bandying about with correlation-causation fallacies. Does religion cause turmoil, or does turmoil cause people to turn to religion?
Quite possible but if you look at the united states and united kingdom alone, they are both similarly developed countries with a similar amount of problems yet the highly religious united states has a murder rate 3 times higher than the much less religious united kingdom.
I don't think you can bring differing amounts of "turmoil" in to this equation.
In case you are unaware, the UK has NO private gun ownership, which could make a difference.
If UK citizens were allowed to own firearms, there may be higher figures, as it is only the police and the criminals carry guns, and as they generally shoot each other, the figures are lower.
It's a silly comparison anyway.
So you are saying that religious people who get their morals from god are susceptible to carry out intentional murder if they are allowed to own a gun?
NO I am saying that where guns are readily available the owners will shoot people who are seen as a threat.
Looking at the actual facts, the main folk shooting each other seem to be criminals, not Christians, though I would guess Bible Belt believers tend to shoot those who try to assault them more readily than their fellow citizens in the Northern States.
An intelligent response is much more worthy of answering than inane smileys following stupid remarks.
You seem to be missing that the figures I showed were for INTENTIONAL murder.
So you are saying there are more criminals in the religious US compared to the UK? Criminals have guns here too. It is the law abiding citizens that don't have guns here.
There is nothing wrong with illustrating my laughter at your response since I deemed it a ridiculous claim although I see it led you to insult my intelligence......
Gosh you are right, doing that feels like just the right reply every so often!
That figures. You dispute my original claim that I backed up with FACT by discussing completely non related things, then you complain and insult me because I laugh at your unrelated response, then when I highlight how your response is irrelevant you laugh and fail to explain anything at all.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that many people will follow a stronger person in search of success. As with a pack of lions, the strongest gets the mates and the food. All the followers get the leftovers.
If food were more and more scarce, the weaker followers would get no food at all.
You are right that strength only prevails in the most extreme situations. That is actually what I was talking about.
Good answer from the author of "Evolution for Dummies".
(Enjoy the free plug!)
Yes, A Trouble Man is an optimal organism. Very strong, too.
errr... you I think, you said that the shark was the most perfectly 'evolved' being as it has not changed for thousands of years...
They say 'by their fruits you will know them' Anyone who is truly saved will automatically want to be good with the Holy Spirit in them.
I celebrate the interconnectedness of all living things, and the life force that dwells WITHIN us ALL. Y'know, the one sparked by the Great Spaghetti Monster??!
Hey, fishing is my favorite sport.
God apparently digs it too since He has his very own lake. Have you heathens swam there yet? Not to worry, you'll get your chance. Don't bother bringing a towel. You'll dry real quick.
Oh, oh, I get it... the lake of eternal hellfire. Hahaha, that's hilarious. Good stuff.
Oh, and, nice deity that keeps a fire lake around for the eternal torture of the souls He created, KNOWING even in the act of creating them that they were flawed and weak and totally going to screw it up. He even scattered them across a huge planet, and for thousands of years gave them no way to communicate with one another, and yet holds them all accountable for learning God's word as described in the European versions of a book. Heck, even the ones that were born before the assembly of the book had to burn. Too bad, should have been born on time you dumb hethens throughout the ages. Not God's fault though. All part of the plan.
That's a fine master to worship there, alrighty.
Sure is. He told everyone they DIDN'T have to go there.
He said, "I'll bail you out of jail, if you'll just call me."
And you must think God is dumb or something..
You ever considered He might, just MIGHT know more about His creation than you?
Oh wait.. that's impossible. You know everything. LOLOL
Sorry, you people just leave the doors wide swinging in the wind..
Just pickin at ya.
So, what blew up your skirt? That's the strangest way I've ever seen anyone act out 'love our neighbor'.
Off topic, but interesting
I just looked it up, athiests are only around 5 percent of the population, and Christians above 30 percent
Not trying to make a point, ihad just assumed there were a lot more athiests tha that
Look up the word atheist instead of athiest and you will find that there are a lot more.
The atheists are the ones with a point on the top of their head where the brain sucker landed.
Not to worry. Now that you know, you should go and fix that hub of yours entitled "I Don't Know If I'm An Athiest" maybe.
Not to worry. You're not an atheist nor an athiest if you believe in a girl God named Kali.
Not to worry. One of the heathens, Shadesbreath, just spelled it hethens.
It's not like God is going to send you to the lake of fire for stupid mistakes. Unless . . .
I think i will leave it up just to annoy you
It depends what version of Spell Check God is using, if its American, you are going to feel very warm and toasty
Atheists are the smartest most intelligent people in the world, if you don't believe me just ask one of them. Because they are so superior they just feel naturally insulted when someone disagrees because it tweaks both of their brain cells at the same time and that isn't polite, so naturally they speak down to people who aren't descendants of monkeys as they are.
According to a BBC survey where people were asked "Do you believe in a god?" as opposed to "What religion are you?" the results showed that over 50% of England do not beleive in any god. Up from 30% in the 1980's.
Many of the numbers I have seen for America (granted they would ask the question "what religion are you" rather then "do you believe in a god") have shown that the percentage of atheists are around 15%.
I think most people have more of an issue with religion than the possible existence of a god/gods these days. Personally I think it's just as intellectually reckless to be "certain" there is NO god as it is to be "certain" that there is. Either stance requires that you make a final determination based on grotesquely incomplete evidence.
I have heard the arguments for belief in god and belief in there being no god. Neither side has conclusive proof. Believers have lots of feelings and anecdotes and some old, venerated texts, etc.
Non-believers have lots of feelings and anecdotes and some new, venerated texts. Etc.
The new stuff is at least new, and it certainly makes much more sense than the burning bushes and water-walking sort of thing, but then, none of the new stuff is actually about God really, its about physical origins of the universe and evolution and all that good stuff. None of which really has anything to do with whether or not there is a god or gods operating out there, whether behind the physics or completely oblivious to it all.
To be "certain" in either direction to me is to conclude you know something that you simply can't possibly know. Which is fine. I get feelings and beliefs. I feel lots of things. I feel The 13th Warrior is the best movie of all time. You'll never convince me otherwise. But that doesn't make it a fact.
strip away the myths and stories and most religions are humanist.....they seek to preserve order and structure, they ask for revolution but they are repackaging an old idea....
Go write a hub and maybe I'll take the above comment seriously.
Consider yourself officially asked!
Getting a couple of hubs under your belt is a good way to introduce yourself to the others here.
yep... will do...at the soonest....and thanks for welcoming me.....have great aday
You will (hopefully) find the hubbers a welcoming lot, all are welcome and newbies are especially welcome, though sometimes treated roughly (unfortunately) until they show some 'form' so to speak.
But welcome to the hub, I look forward to reading your work.
...and as I promised John here is my first Hub article,
and please feel free to critique my work
ATHEISM: A HEAVY BURDEN TO BEAR.
By Joe Prussing
Atheism is a hell of a burden. It’s hard. It takes faith, real effort, and some serious thought to believe in… well, nothing. Life is not so easy. It’s often complicated; and that includes the afterlife as well. But wait, you may be saying to yourself: it’s easy to believe in nothing. Any idiot can do that; and many do, I suppose. Perhaps atheists are just plain lazy then. Not so much in the physical sense (although they can be that, too) but rather, intellectually. It is almost as if they have no real curiosity, or interest, in anything outside their own immediate and finite world which, even with all their computers, telescopes, gizmos and gadgets they couldn’t begin to understand, explain, or even appreciate. So why bother?
It would seem that the true atheist, if he exists at all, is not only motivated by his own egocentrisms (which, by the way, he will deny all day on an autographed stack of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species and Carl Sagan’s grave) but by some deeper psychological need to justify his own non-belief, which is not only quite revealing but makes about as much sense as Stephen Hawkins’ ‘spontaneous generation’ theory and the infinity of space. Or perhaps he is driven by something a little more personal, more human, like his own self interests. Maybe he just wants to make a name for himself. Write a paper, or a book! Invent the better mouse trap, a faster computer, or come up with a cure for the common cold, AIDS, or Christopher Hitchens’ throat cancer. Why? So he can lounge around with his fellow altruists at the local Starbucks congratulating one another on just how brilliant they are? If nothing else, they will surely argue, it only goes to prove there is no God, simply because…well, because if there were a God, then he, she, or it (Hey, at least these loons are politically correct) certainly wouldn’t need such brilliant men and women like Richard Dawkins, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, Bill Mahar, and themselves to solve these monumental mysteries and prove that He doesn’t exist. What the atheist fails to realize, besides the simple fact that you cannot get something out of nothing, is the pure, unambiguous, unadulterated, unabridged, and universal Truth that God will not be ignored. Nor will He be mocked or measured. God does not change. But most of all, if the Bible teaches us anything: God cannot, and will not, be impressed. Just ask Job.
Atheists will also argue, quite forcefully I might add, that theirs is not a religion at all; and they would be wrong about that too. If pantheism is the worship of nature, then atheism is the worship of science; something Mister Darwin would surely have no problem with. As opposed to other major religions, however, atheism has very little to offer. Nothing! if you take them at their sanctimonious word and follow them to their logical and predictable end. Judaism (often referred to as the religion of the past, which, by the way is not necessarily a bad thing) at least has four thousand years of edification and some pretty interesting characters; Islam, the religion of the present, if you believe in the Arab Spring, has its seventy-two virgins, provided you kill enough infidels along the way to earn the Jihadist reward. And Christianity, which might be considered the faith of the future since it seems to have the best recruiting record and the most converts, has the Cross with its infinite possibilities and glorious implications. Of the four, atheism is probably the least tolerant, which may disqualify it from the start, at least from a political perspective. Yet it seems to meets all the criteria necessary to be considered a true religion as recognized by its faithful few. It is liberal to the core, of course, with socialism its chief aim and outcome; although for political expediency it all comes under the auspices of such modern titles as environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, animal rights, etc... Science, naturally, is the Holy Grail of atheism which will one day triumph by discovering all the answers, along with Big-foot, the missing link, Al Gore’s brain and Chaz Bono’s true sexual identity. With contempt for mankind in general and a collectively sustained guilty conscience, these self-anointed secular humanists claim to be no better, or worse, off than a single-celled protozoan at the bottom of a Petri-dish, insisting we are all equal, despite our humanity, while never-the-less acquiescing to their socialist brethren that some protozoan are more equal than others. Not only are atheists arrogant, egotistical, condescending, and lazy – they’re snobs, too; and quite hypocritical about it. Now that’s religion for you. That’s Orthodoxy!
And then there are the Evolutionists. The problem with Charles Darwin’s theory of course, other than just being a theory, is simply this: The fittest doesn’t always survive. Consider the dinosaur or the wooly mammoth, or Nietzsche for that matter. What’s not supposed to kill us doesn’t necessarily make us stronger. Sometimes, it actually does kill us; just like bad jokes, bad whiskey, jealous women – and politicians! Natural selection is not that selective; it may not even be natural. There are no fossil records, at least none that anthropologists can agree on with any amount of certitude, of a missing link or any other mutant freak of Nature in any of the species; at least not enough to validate the revolutionary claim at the core of the naturalists’ belief. It simply doesn’t exist, despite numerous attempts to either find or manufacture such a hybrid by those who would follow in the faulty footsteps of their fool-hearty master: a globe-trotting biologist whose legacy in life is to be remembered, and perhaps even loved, as ‘…the man who murdered God.’
If nothing else, and if science is of any use here, we are not evolving at all, but devolving, as proven by Darwin’s own empirical data which clearly suggests an increase number of mutations, where there should actually be, if the survival of the fittest and laws of natural selection apply, a decrease. That is precisely why we have so many separate and uniquely distinct individual species, and so few, if any, we can combine, and none of which can actually reproduce. In other words: there are no such things as monkey-men or mermaids (except in our own egotistical imagination) no matter how inviting, intriguing, or logical they may sound or appear. We are no more likely to come across one of these fantastic creatures any more than we are would ever come face to face with, say, a griffin, a sphinx, the fabled faun or fated unicorn, furry fish, or even the elusive elephant-bird for that matter; at least not genetically, and definitely not by natural selection. But we do have an abundance of species. Diversity, and not necessity, is perhaps the real mother of invention after all, and proof positive of God’s creative power. But the scientist and the theologian sometimes make for strange bedfellows. Philosophy and micro-biology don’t always mix; and neither does anthropology and metaphysics for that matter. They’re insoluble, I suppose, like oil and water, or religion and politics. Let’s just all agree, if we can agree on nothing else, that we’re mutually doomed to extinction, no matter what we are, or where we come from, and equally in need of Salvation.
Real scientists, not unlike real men and women, want and need real answers; not just theories and falsifiable evidence. And they’ll go anywhere to find them; to the ends of the earth, even outside of their own finite Universe if that’s what it takes. Atheists, on the other hand, are afraid of all that. It would take too much effort, too much time; besides, they have more important things to do, you know, like genetic and social engineering, aborting innocent babies, stem cell research, and saving mankind in general, along with the whales and the sea-turtles, while trying to convince the rest of us uneducated dolts in their own patronizing and magnanimous way just how smart they are and, moreover, how intellectually superior they are for knowing it. Never mind the fact that they have no idea where that intelligence came from, what it is or how it got there, and are just too lazy to find out, or even ask.
Not all roads lead to Heaven; some go straight to hell. And even if they did, there’s no guarantee we’ll ever get there. Almost all of the major religions agree. If you were to ask Mohammed: ‘How do I get to Heaven?’ he would most likely laugh, tell you how merciful Allah is, and then cut your head off. The Hindu, on the other hand, might simply direct you to a nearest caterpillar, or cow, or whatever reincarnated being is closest to that heavenly state of Nirvana. Buddha, who would think such a question in bad taste, will merely smile and say something like: ‘Heaven is a state of mind, my child’. The Jewish Rabbi, if he’s an honest one, will probably tear his clothes in two and point you to Leviticus or Deuteronomy, and then try to sell you a new suit. As for the Atheist and the Pantheist… well, they’re really just opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin, and will surely agree that if such places as Heaven and hell exist at all, we are living in them right now; and they will be equally wrong, of course.
Perhaps Christianity is our best bet after all. It’s the only religion, that I’m aware of, that recognizes we are all sinners and offers any real hope of Salvation. And all it asks for in return is faith, which is fortified thru grace and obedience. It doesn’t get much simpler than. The Jews have the Law; Islam has the prophet; Buddha, Vishnu and Confucius have their ambiguities; and atheism is simply too heavy a load to carry. ‘For my yoke is easy and my burden is light…’ And He does all the work! In fact, on our own, we can do nothing. And even if we could, then Christianity is a hoax, a myth, a lie, or perhaps something worse; and Christ died for nothing. That’s the difference between Christianity and all other religions in a nutshell: On the one hand, man reaches up to God and gets… well, we don’t really know. On the other hand, God reaches down to man, and gives him, if we take Him at His excellent word – Everything! Including Himself.
There you go. You have the written material you need for your first hub. Now all you need a pic. Just copy Mark Knowles picture and put 666 on his forehead.
Naw! Simply hire Mark Ewbie to draw a stickman Jesus to show the importance of the hub. Of course, a real photo of Jesus would be much better. I'm sure some religious site has one they would gladly loan him.
I stopped reading round about there. Since atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief you are arguing against a strawman.
I hope you had fun writing that because I for one did not bother to read it.
Sorry but, Atheism is a Belief!!!
Atheists have an opinion as to the existence of God; an opinion based upon Belief in the non-existence of God.
In Truth the Existence or the Non-existence of God is Uncertain, can not be proven one way or another; that being the reason that both Theism and Atheism are defined as being a Belief System.
I myself am an Atheist that believes in God.
Actually atheist don't believe in nonsense.
If believers had never mentioned some super all controlling being, there would've never been any reason for the rejection.
Assertion--Rejection. Not Assertion-Belief.
Yeah, those wascally atheists are sure to convert if we just talk down to them a little more.
The existence of God is a theory. As I see it, in the world of science, theories are meant to be supported or refuted. You do this by posing a hypothesis and set out to either find evidence for or against the stated hypothesis. The burden of proof falls on those who state there is a God.
I suppose one could turn that around and argue that, as a null hypothesis, disproving the existence of God is the burden of the disbelievers.
Personally, if I were trying to find evidence for a theory I developed, I would do all that I could to both find evidence for it and against it, before I could put much faith in either stance.
It's a theory for those who don't believe.
It's reality for those who do.
I think the word you seek is "delusion," not "reality."
To be serious for a moment, you could do better with the ladies if you had 666 on your forehead.
The Female Species is easily duped, beguiled, easily falling for a Man having Machismo.
666 is a misnomer!
Bestial Man, Man having Machismo, a perverted, distorted sense of Manliness, Macho Man, being a Male Chauvinistic Pig; Brawny Man’s mind being filled with boiled Pig Fat is sick in the Head, Sic,Sic,Sic.
1. a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity.
2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate:
When it comes to the Love of the Female Species, the Male Chauvinistic Pig, Brawny Man is Two Faced, speaks with a forked tongue; Macho Man’s True Love being himself; Macho Man, the Male Chauvinistic Pig having Machismo, preferring to, believing that he is entitled to dominate the Female Species.
Macho Man having a biased devotion to the Male, Species, to Bestiality; is sick in the Head, Full of it, of Fundament, Fundamentalism.
How exactly did you conclude I don't have any personal experiences that I conclude on for my faith?
You think I just went, "Oh, that one sounds good, lets run with it!"
No.. I didn't, lol.
Maybe one day you'll look, and maybe you'll get an experience.
But you have to look first. Not glance.
Hey Vector, you are an example of "let your light shine, don't hide it under a basket"
keep up the good work! We are God's vessels. We are here not only to accept Christ, thereby being happy and full of joy for his presence in our lilves and the knowledge of his great love for us, and endless "open arms" to us like you said in your hub, but to share with other the great news.
I never force anything down anyone's throat and that's why I think I have good results with communicating with people about God.
After we are 'saved' life doesn't get easier as my friend Tammy said the other day. Even if we are cured too, and our health gets better, NEW CHALLENGES arise all the time, tests , etc. But we are blessed to have the opportunity to serve- because one day in Heaven, we can look back and be happy we did what we did.
It's not easy to suffer, but putting on the armour of Christ, and submitting our will to His, is really beautiufl, and even though i suffer a great deal, every time i come out of it, I am willing to do it all over again, for God.........
So did you compare Matthew 7:7 to these verses from the Quran?
22:62 - It is a fact that ALLAH is the Truth, while the setting up of any idols beside Him constitutes a falsehood, and that ALLAH is the Most High, the Supreme.
10:32 - Such is ALLAH, your rightful Lord. What is there after the truth, except falsehood? How could you disregard all this?
Ever heard of legal precedent?
Rev 22 18:19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
They close the canon of scripture, anything written after that is outside of that canon.
Anyhow, no matter if the Muslims were correct, atheists are still stuffed with God.
I am 100% secure in my belief that I have decided correctly, if you are also 100% sure, well done, and may your life be a pleasant one.
We ALL find out whether we made the correct decision when we die.
Actually, when you're dead, you don't "find out" anything at all, because you're dead.
And THAT is what you are staking your eternal destiny upon.
Your choice, hope you made the right decision, and oddly enough, if you are correct, so what?
And you choose to worship the god that is burning our friend Ernest?
Actually it's YOU that says Earnest is in Hell Mark, but let's ignore that shall we, you like to keep grinding the stone to no avail.
I chose to worship a God that offers Grace and Mercy to everyone, you chose to reject the offer and abuse Him. Slight difference.
Picture a sinking ship, the passengers are offered to leave the ship and have free passage to safety on another vessel, some choose to switch to the safe vessel, some refuse, the ones who refuse are told that the vessel WILL sink, and they will die. They choose to stay aboard, saying that they don't believe the ship will sink.
Why would they be able to complain?
Oh - sorry - what did you mean by "atheists are still stuffed with God," in that case?
You know full well that for whatever reason I suspect that Earnest had been truly saved when he was younger, and if he was, then his later rejection would have been inconsequential.
Earnest will have faced judgement, I have no idea what the judgement would have been, but from the little I know of HOW Earnest lived in the world, I would hope that he was saved.
You are the one revelling in stating that Earnest is burning in hell, which coincidently I think is wrong, as his grandchildren may be reading this, but then I guess you are only concerned about children hearing that God loves them.
YOU keep pushing this hell thing, and I seriously wonder whether you are 100% secure in your beliefs that God does not exist.
If you are, then why are you concerned anyway?
I don't threaten hell, you do, which sounds a weird way to go about being an atheist.
Wow, believers insult and disrespect the living as well as those who have passed on.
So - what did you mean by "atheists are still stuffed with God." then? As Ernest was adamantly atheist and totally rejected your religion.
Funny how your imagination comes up with scenarios such as that only to further show it's all in your head.
That would be analogous to your beliefs only if the ship was an illusion.
In other words, no beliefs allowed other than Big Brother's
Thanks. I am sure that ALL religious beliefs are nothing more than delusion, based upon indoctrination, and fear.
Islam is born of Judaism, Christianity, Mohammad believing that the written word, the words of the prophecy of the book, of Judaism and Christianity had been perverted, distorted.
Shara, Islamic Law, the Koran not put into Writing until long after the death of Mohammad and his followers; Putting the interpretation of the sayings of Mohammad and his followers, the Koran, Sharia, Islamic Law, Mohammad’s sense of Morality at the mercy of Men having a distorted sense of Manliness, Macho Man having Machismo, Chauvinist Pigs, haters of the Female Species, men with dirty, unclean hands being allowed to touch, to become familiar with, to interpret, the sayings of Mohammad and his followers, to interpret Mohammad’s sense of Morality, Sharia, Islamic Law, the Koran.
Being impure, unclean, not being of Islam, having no compassion, these men have been allowed to touch, to become familiar with, having been allowed to Interpret Sharia, Islamic Law have perverted, distorted Mohammad’s sense of Compassion, Islam.
Followers of True God, Allah, the God of Compassion, set your selves Free of the Self-Righteousness of your Pharaohs of Islam.
Reject the distorted, perverted sense of manliness that prevails in the Fundamentalist’s interpretation of Sharia, Islamic Law, the Moral Righteousness of Men having Machismo.
1. a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility,
courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate
2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate:
Guys, have fun, it's 1am. and I am off to bed.
Sure hope you are all right.
Fine thanks, hope you bring more evidence from scientists showing the beliefs of believers are all conjured in their heads. Well done, sir!
Forget the evidence! We believe because we are fools for Christ!!
God bless ATM!
by DeaneMc8 years ago
URGENT PRAYER REQUEST from Pastor Mark ArnoldJim BramlettSep 26, 2008The below is forwarded from Pastor Mark Arnold of Ohio. Pastor Mark is the one who had such a dramatic and unlikely encounter with Governor...
by Steve Andrews5 years ago
On Facebook I know of at least two profiles where the people running them have offended some Pagans by comments they have made from a Christian viewpoint and links they have posted. I have seen this sort of problem...
by Mick Menous6 years ago
Personally, I really don't see what gives non-believers the right to criticize and verbally hurt innocent religions who want to do nothing but help spread peace, love, and do charity work for the poor. After much...
by Rabgix4 years ago
Obviously if i'm an atheist and I don't believe in your God, why would I take your scriptures as evidence? That doesn't make any sense.Not to mention the bible has this nasty ideal that everything in it is true because...
by Will Apse16 months ago
Quote:Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests.They do the opposite when thinking about the physical...
by lucieanne5 years ago
After reading and contributing to so many posts about Christianity on here I'd love for someone to answer this question. Which form (if any)of Christianity is the real deal? It's one thing to get into heated debates...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.