That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is indication of a logical fallacy.
I find that to be a fallacious argument as well. Implicit in the statement is that God doesn't like to see people suffer, that He could stop it but doesn't, that he knows it is there (is watching) as well as other inferences. None of which we know to be true.
One could, however, say that the God described by most Christians (omniscient, omnipotent, all loving, etc.) does not exist. By human standards those characteristics do not equate with a god that allows massive suffering, and that "by human standards" makes the argument somewhat weak, but it is still valid to a point.
How do you think God should stop suffering? Destroy Satan when the world has chosen him to be their leader? Why would Jesus worship God when He allowed Himself to suffer? The spiritual refinement that comes out of suffering is amazing if one allows themselves to grow for the better.
Why, the omnipotent god is not potent enough? He needs the world's consent?
He cares about what we want. Do you want to be forced to worship God?
You can't kill a spirit. I ask you again, do you want to be forced to worship God?Much of what we have in life are from Satan.
Yes, one cannot kill that which do not exist.
What has satan got to do with worship of god.
Then pray and thank satan instead of god, why being ungrateful?
Irony is you associate yourself with his number.
If you don't want Satan to thrive you must obey God all the time. Do you want to be forced to obey Him? Nobody can possibly obey God all the time
Should I thank Satan for evil? Most things in this life are evil. Satan isn't responsible for beautiful things in life but evil is far more prevalent.
There is number for a nonexistent thing? It's a bait for idiots who take book written by fools seriously.
Why not only your god but your satan is not powerful. Yea nobody can obey your god all the time, if by god you mean the psychotic fellow from the stories of jews, for even he doesn't know what he wants.
May be for you, but those of us who are not depressed life is beautiful and evil is almost non existent.
So why did you choose to associate yourself with that number? I suppose the majority of corporations, government, etc, are pretty much idiotic. Here are some examples.
W is 6 in Hebrew. Thus the world wide web is 666. Let's also take Apple computers. The first price tag was $666 and it's logo is an apple bitten into. That's represents rebellion against God for you know what forbidden fruit was bitten into in the Garden of Eden.
We have Monster energy drink which is one of most blatant references to 666.
Those three symbols is V in Judaism and V is also 6.
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossa … y_-_v.html
Satan is not powerful? Wrong. And God from the OT? Not mine. Almost everything in the OT about Him is false.
You mean those who live in a parallel universe and only care about their own surroundings. To say evil is almost non-existent is asinine. Tell the family of those who died in 9-11 evil doesn't exist. Tell those who survived the Holocaust that evil is virtually non existent. No wonder you are so clueless about life.
I cannot comment about other people, I can only say about me.
Spirit is a concept, a non existent thing, so how do you propose a number for a non-existent thing?
As I said, fools who take literally the stories of ancient books, they are the fish who catch such baits. I don't give a damn about the number and I don't care either as long as it remains a 'catchy' number.
Numbers is a human construct, to count and carry no meaning other than that what is assigned to them.
"That's represents rebellion against God for you know what forbidden fruit was bitten into in the Garden of Eden."
you were saying something about the OT god as not yours?
Your NT god is not much good wither. How can a nonexistent spirit be powerful?
You say you have "depression" as a disease and you are not qualified to speak for others who are not depressed. I see my niece(2 year old) almost every week and I have never seen her unhappy except when her mother scolds her. Is she living in parallel universe? You speak of 9/11, have you seen any of their kin? Are the relatives eternally depressed because some of their kin died? My grand mother died recently, and I saw my mother crying. But I have not seen her crying all these days (more than 3 months now), she laughs and enjoys. My friend lost his mother 6 months back, he too is living happily with his wife and kid.
I see people helping others, I see people whose death is decided by disease living the rest of their life happily, I see the beautiful nature and the rain, the sun and the stars and the peace around me. I see my friends, my relatives and all the good things in my life. I see food and plenty, the Ferrari's and porches, I see the rickshaw puller going to his kid in the evening and enjoying.
I am not depressed nor am I living in a parallel universe. I live an enjoy my life just like anybody else. I can only grieve at your lose and hope one day you will get over your depression and see what you missed.
But now I see, what you call satan is actually your depression. As long as you think it as an outside problem, your depression is not going to get cured. I think depression has an effective treatment, but judging from your comments, I think what I heard was wrong or you are not properly taking your treatment. You put the blame on an "outside satan" that you do not have to take responsibility for your problems, but depression is an internal problem - an imbalance of the chemicals of the brain and as long as you do not take responsibility you will see the world only through your depressed eyes which will feed your depression.[I am not sure whether I conveyed what I intended, for after putting it into words I feel it as different]
So you say 666 is a catchy number? Does that mean you use it to rile up Christians? It doesn't matter if you think Satan is real or not, he does exist and if you knew him you'd quickly dissociate yourself from that number.
I can find little resemblance my God in the OT and it should be obvious. Would Jesus condone the things God supposedly did in the OT?
Explain why my "New Testament" God isn't good either? You are just assuming spirits don't exist. You suffer from confirmation bias.
Many people don't suffer from depression but still think the world is a bad place. Do you think it's unwarranted to think the world is a bad place? You haven't suffered what others have suffered. Y You appear to live a sheltered life.
You cannot compare a 2 year niece to adults. They live in their own world. They can't acknowledge the suffering around the world.
It is true that victims of terrible things can get through with it but it doesn't change the fact evil happened on that day. And it's not a once off, evil like that is happening everyday. It doesn't stop.
As for the Ferraris and rickshaw puller being happy. How do you know what goes on behind closed doors? Again this indicates your shallow perception of the world. This is not to say that there aren't beautiful things in life. I laugh, I appreciate good people and marvel at creation but it is impossible for me to just concentrate on those things.
Satan is not my depression. You believe that because you are incredibly naive about what really happens in the world. It is just impossible to have a relationship with God without knowing evil.
So, unfortunately, because of your lack of understanding of the real world I am not surprised you don't believe in Satan's existence. You have made a way off diagnosis of me which is not remotely true. Why don't you familiarize yourself with evil in the world?
Could you point out specific evils attributable to Satan? I'm not aware of anything that the root cause can't be traced back to human activity.
Why shouldn't I? When mature adlts behave like immature kids, that is a good hobby.
Other than that is written in a book by ancient ignorant barbarians, have you anything to substantiate what you say? Satan, for you, is the personification of things that you do not like but that does not make satan "exist", outside your mind.
If OT god is not yours why do you speak about "garden of Eden"?
What did he do other than telling that "not a letter of the law will be changed"? For an alleged god he could have condemned circumcision, slavery or could have taught followers about treatment of leprosy or tuberculosis. At least he could do something to improve the child mortality. All he did was preaching some idiotic things not worth listening.
There are pessimists and optimists but neither of them "feel" as you do.
World is neither good nor bad, it just is. It is what you make of it.
There is not a single person in the world whose dear ones haven't died, but that doesn't make them say as you do, that world is evil.
Neither good things stop. On balance it is fifty fifty, nay the evil is very less compared to the good.
How do you know what is happening behind closed doors? I have been with this people have laughed and lived along with them. Not for nothing I am an Indian. You leave in a nation where people live in luxury when compared to india, but your depression prevent you from seeing other peoples happiness, I have no such problem, I see world as it is.
That is your problem which is shared by very few people.
There is neither satan nor god. You personify what you do not like and call it satan. You yourself agree that satan is a "spirit" with no material existence. It means satan is just a concept inside the minds of humans, not a reality.
I see very less evil to familiarize with. I see beauty and love, get over the depression you too will see like me, like the majority in this world.
So you don't believe the God in the OT is the same as NT? Please elaborate on why you feel that way?
Just a couple of things: Jesus said you shall love your neighbour but God was constantly killing in the OT and the law was eye for an eye. Jesus said those who live by the sword, die by the sword but God was encouraging the Jews to kill.
I can understand what you are saying, and your thoughts reflect the thoughts of a lot of other people (both Christian and atheist). The thing to remember, though is what was going on during the time that these things were spoken. God had a heavier hand in the OT than he did in the NT because the people were under the law in the OT. God sent Christ down to fulfill the law at which point God no longer has a heavy hand. It is difficult to reconcile the disparities at times, but the God in the OT is the same God as the God in the NT. Preferring God in the NT over the OT is a natural progression and is okay, but understanding the culture of the times is important in recognizing and resolving the disparity between the two Gods (so to speak)
Edit: This does not make you any less of a Christian to question the bible against what you believe God to be. It makes you human.
Do you believe God had a heavier hand because he literally had a hand?
New International Version (NIV)
11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
But then further on He says:
Then the Lord said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." Exodus 33:18-23
The literal version of the OT suggests that God was actually the gods. In other words, extra-terrestrials.
Moses did delve into devil worship.
2 Kings 18:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
18 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.
3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did.
4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
I'm not sure if you are aware that serpent worship is devil worship. I mean, idolatry is wrong.
So this is not my God. He cannot contradict Jesus.
No don't blame poor Satan, thank God for evil
" I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. ( Isaiah 45:7 King James Version)
Conveniently though, she doesn't think that god is represented accurately in the OT, so that won't work for her.
I don't know why this isn't getting through to you. How can a portrayal of God in the OT contradict Jesus?
One possible answer to that could be that the history represents a detailed account of the result of the expectations of humanity and how it plays out when one nation is favored above another. It could simply be showing the problems associated with a stay at home God. One can't have it both ways. If a god is going to use its power to favor one nation over another and answer its whims, much of the horror seen will be the outcome. If a nation is to be favored, it would have to prove its worth above all others. A god couldn't simply say 'love ya' to one group as opposed to another. There would have to be a reason evident for such displays of power. That people would have to be uniformly holy.
Anyone can easily recognize the serious problems. The people are bad, at times. They make poor judgment calls, at times. They put their desires over clear instructions. Yet, God eventually mops up the messes. Then, after a great deal of shepharding and baby sitting; the lesson is ended. History is written. Either learn a lesson, ignore it, or attempt to reinterpret it.
I think, the story of the gospels reflects an attempt to show a lesson learned. I think, mainstream Christianity reflects an attempt to ignore it. You appear to reflect an attempt to reinterpret it.
The Old Testament is more of a showcase of the problems associated with favoritism than it is a reflection of the nature of God. It reflects the arrogance which is the natural by product of belief that one is favored over another (the Israelite nation's behavior) and the horrors associated with such a belief (genocide, ridiculous rules, wanton violence reflected in their god's behavior).
Sadly, the hopes of power associated with favoritism outweigh the value of the lesson that could be learned so religion continues unabated.
LoL, which one came first? When did your Jesus ever say they got it wrong? A question you still haven't answered. For someone who so adamantly commanded them to continue to follow the law and the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, I see no backing for your opinion.
Did He have to say it was wrong? He defied the Sabbath rule and He changed the "eye for an eye" law to "love your enemies".
What does it say for Jesus if He defied His own Father?
Claire, has it ever occurred to you these actions were not defiance, but clarification as to intent?
You take a kid. When it is small, the ground rules make no sense. You corral them in with 'no' to protect them. As they mature, they begin to understand why no.
Or, and don't take this the wrong way, do you think man was not created with the ability to reason? The monster of the Old Testament was something the 'real god' wanted to put to rest? If so, why did Jesus continually refer to the laws of Moses? Why did he discuss the reasons for the law? Wouldn't he have stated clearly that he was not affiliated with that god?
So he defied his father?
Disobedient, so according to his father, "stone him".
No, He defied those Jewish laws which had nothing to do with God.
Well, He didn't defy the father so He needn't be stoned.
So Jewish law is not from 'god'?
So why did Jesus or god selected the most fanatical and idiotic group in existence at that time, to get himself killed? How jesus suffering weaken satan? When America and Iraq fought putting a bomb in America weakens Iraq?
No, I don't think the law of not eating swine, for example, is from God. Absolutely not.
Jesus had to be killed by sometime in order to die for our sins and show He defeated sin by rising from the dead. That is how Jesus weakened Satan. By taking on our sins we could be forgiven if we truly repent. Our sin being taken away really weakens Satan.
The Jews were the closet in knowing God as they were monotheistic. Jesus had to be a descendant of some lineage.
I think a lizard sneezed and world was created, so? It is not what you think, but why you think that is important, whether you can substantiate what you say.
That is pure nonsense. Why should anybody die to conquer sin? How jesus sleeping for 2 days weakens satan? Was the food for satan was in jesus's hand? How 'forgiven' becoms 'taken away'?
Pure chance? What was that lineage? Why?
And I also mentioned you had to give more than the example of an "eye for an eye." You're basing your whole theory on these two things, while I gave you more examples of where he specifically commanded that they not abandon the law or the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which you still haven't addressed. As far as the Sabbath is concerned:
12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
How can he defy something He claims to be Lord of? He even used an OT example. I still see no basis for forming a whole worldview based on these things. It makes it easier for you to promote God if the OT isn't a correct depiction of God, and yet time and time again, Jesus either quoted the OT, or expounded upon it. Of all the things he spoke out against, he never said they got it wrong. Sorry, dear. I don't believe any of it, I'm just showing you that you have no real basis for this particular opinion.
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath in that His authority trumps any Sabbath laws. And the OT example meant that the Sabbath rules can be bent for ceremonial purposes.
I do not mean that the whole of the Old Testament is rubbish. When the Bible says that Jesus made a reference to the Old Testament I do some research on the Internet to see how legitimate it is. Often the gospel writers purposely associated Jesus with the Old Testament in an attempt to attract Jews to Christianity.
And is my Lord the one portrayed in the corrupted Old Testament? No.
The Lord's Prayer goes:
"...and deliver us from evil."
Yes WHY DIDNT GOT KILL SATAN? Don't avoid the question as if wasn't irrelevant! If there is nothing impossible for 'god' why didn't he obliterate Satan? Does it stand to reason that one perfect creates another perfect being just so that perfect being 'sins' near the throne? And then creating a planet placing that now 'imperfect' being with 'lesser but perfect beings' tempting them to sin considering it never originated from them. Now condemning all those perfect beings to hell.
This is monotheistic religion in a nutshell: The Illusion of Free Will
If a man holds a gun to your head and asks you whether or not you want him to pull the trigger , how much freedom of choice do you have? So if a religion tells you that eternal damnation awaits you for not adhering , how much free will do they offer?
There is no free will. All this was man made. All these pastors tripping into giving your money because you 'owe' a deity you can't see, hear, smell or touch. They condemn you and if you adhere they preach about a god of love and they help you. If you don't they use their authority and point out what according to their biblical standard is a sin constantly. They don't LEAVE you alone. This is terrorism. On top of that they take advantage of your vulnerabilities and your weaknesses just to get you in their congregation saying that at some point, you'll hit the lottery and god will give you all your hopes and dreams like a genie if you obey?
NO!, you know what? because its all BS meant to try and control people's minds and thoughts. The mind of Christ is the mind of your pastor and/or minister, and I won't be tricked into giving my life up for something that isnt real just because you or anyone else who thinks they have some kind of spiritual authority says so.
Creation itself is a complete waste of time and all for what, so a deity can make itself great? That's a serious ego complex and considering the creative and imaginative nature of 'humanity', yeah he did invent a 'god' to impress his territorial instincts on others. .
A sort of Amway presenter with angel's wings?
After a good night's sleep, good morning everyone.
Good Morning Jonny, it seems like a moment ago when you signed out. What a day it's been.
Hey JCL, it seems you are a crazy Amway fan!
Hey Soldout777, how ya going? We have missed your presence here. Where have you been hiding?
Amway?....nah, I almost got sucked into that 20 years ago. I was put off by the smart people dressed in grey suits, being nice and polite, trying to convince me that their brand of commercialism was like a new, religious belief system. Yet most of those people coming up to you in the street or at your door would rarely come straight out and tell you "Amway." It was like they were embarrassed to admit it.... so they beat about the bush, and someway into their spiel, they would answer your question, "Yes, that's right Amway."
To me, it's more like the "American Way." Trying to convince other people that their lives are a-miss unless they have a handle on what's being sold. I see this evangelism in the same light..... "We know what's best for you, and you are condemned unless you got Jesus!"
I would rather go into Paganism, it seems more honest and down-to-earth.
Because both Satan and God share power on earth, Satan by far having the most. Where in the Bible does it say that so-called perfect being sinned near the throne? Both Satan and God are responsible for the universe. Everything is made of opposites like an atom. God and Satan are opposites.
If a man holds a gun to your head and asks you whether or not you want him to pull the trigger , how much freedom of choice do you have? So if a religion tells you that eternal damnation awaits you for not adhering , how much free will do they offer?
Of course someone is going to say they don't want to be shot. They could make the choice to say nothing, though, or call his bluff and say, "Go for it." or attempt to run away. Saying they don't want to be shot is not the only option they have.
One has free will whether to commit evil or not. Those who are unrepentant and know what they are doing choose to keep their sin which God cannot go near. Eternal damnation is the complete separation from God. Repentance unites us with God. No one goes to hell because they were an atheist. Right until the end and beyond on Judgement Day we have a choice. Do we want to stay with sin thus joining Satan in hell or do we want to remedy our sin and be with God. It's still a choice.
Don't associate those pastors with God.
Did Jesus behave like that? Did He demand tithes or threaten them with hell? Did He constantly condemn sinners and not give them a chance to repent? Are those pastors having the mind of Christ?
How about God wanting our love and companionship?
"Yes WHY DIDNT GOT KILL SATAN?"
What I am about to say I read a very long time ago.
Lucifer during the time he was in heaven was a leader and had a large impact on other angels. Once Lucifer was cast out of heaven God could have destroyed him then and there but if he had done so other angels might question maybe Lucifer had some validity to the claims he was making as far as taking over heaven.
Now the following is from me.
After all this time heaven and earth can now judge for themselves what Satan is really like.
Simply look around see how hateful man is, look at how people are strung out on illegal drugs, look at all the wars there are in the world. The proof is staring us in the face
Is that proof of Satan's horror or Gods lack of compassion or the absence of any God?
I am not looking to prove God. My religion gives all mankind the freedom to choose which of a deity they so desire only at the end of the age of life will we determine who was right and who was wrong.
Is that proof of Satan's horror or Gods lack of compassion or the absence of any God?
Make up your mind please.
Ok, if your religion gives that freedom, then you! must allow that freedom! Stop trying to convince us by your words. Show us by your actions. Honour my choice.
Well said gabgirl. And yeah, religion is all about control.
Christianity is about a personal relationship with Jesus. Without having that relationship you can't understand a thing about what the other person is telling. It's all about love man. I know you won't understand, but hey it's fine....
Don't act as if you know everything about something when you don't know anything at all!
This raises a very interesting question. You say that Christianity is a personal relationship, Right? Does that mean that in that relationship, he speaks to each of us differently?
He can speak to each of us in different ways...
But there are some basic fundamental truths which every Christian should know. For instance if you say there is a way to God apart from Jesus, just because you don't want to appear narrow minded, then you are no more a follower of Christ... It is as simple as that!
But I thought Christians think God and Jesus are one? You description seems to look like they are separate.
They are not one God? If they are in fact separate does that mean you see yourself as a pagan? Does it also mean you are not following the commandment that says to only worship one God?
Actually, There are two different kinds of Christian. Trinitarians who believe that there is one God in three persona. And unitarians that believe that God and Jesus are separate. Unitarians believe that Christ is the son of God, but not God the son. Those who believe in the trinity usually are quick to state that unitarians are not really Christian (even if they accept everything else about Christ). This is why Melissa gets attacked so often.
Okay, so the bible also can speak different things to each of us in accordance with this "personal relationship, correct?
This had nothing to do with my question and also opens up a different question.
again this had nothing to do with my initial question.
Well Deepes, You agree to the fact that God speaks to us in different ways.
So now I want you to keep this in mind, next time If I am commenting here please don't try to come in between and tell me I am wrong . I'll do the same, I am sure this is what you want.....thank you.
But when you are wrong, it needs to be said, and it appears it needs to be said often.
If memory is on my side, you were the first one throwing out an assessment that I was wrong. I didn't address you first. Disagreement of belief is one thing, saying someone is wrong is another because we are discussing beliefs. If the absolute truth is not proven enough to be for all people then there cannot be right or wrong. we can quote scriptures back and forth all we want to and point out where we disagree, but CANNOT say who is right or wrong without direct evidence.
But when you are wrong, it needs to be said, and it appears it needs to be said often.
So let the discussion continue............
I am the first one to start, alright !
Now could you please be honest and give me the answer without beating about the bush . !
We agree on fundamental truths in the bible, but our differences lie in the meaning of said truths. You say there are some things that are self explanatory and i agree, but apparently your self explanatory and mine are still different. It is also obvious that you and I pick apart each others' statements, but with different agendas. You and I are both Christians. We both understand what the Word says to us individually. We both understand what works best for us in our lives. I think the best thing to do here is for us to leave it at that because this statement is implying that I am not being honest and that I have not answered your question.. You will not get far with me or anyone else for that matter using these statements.
That usually shows a very poor explanation of truth, the fault would lie in God, then. Funny, how such an omnipotent being could fail so miserably at explaining the truth to everyone, or at least, those who believe they are getting such an explanation.
I know you are a Christian. It's just that we have different explanations.
And you don't have to answer my questions, if you don't like to. Fine!
But I want to remind you this,..
Don't be sarcastic like you did in this post,
"Don't you get it, Jonny, Soldout's truth is the only truth of the Bible. Not too different from others who are convinced they are right and anyone who believes different is wrong and a nonbeliever"
I was discussing with jonny, and you came in between and started telling me I am narrow minded!
Don't show your sarcasm again, and it will be fine.
Hope you understand Deepes!
How? Like, with a lisp? Or, with a John Wayne accent? Or, talking like it's underwater?
I can't speak for Soldout but in my experience the answer is "yes" and "no."
The Bible is there for everyone but everyone's experience, even reading the Bible, is different. My wife and I were both (I say "were" because of course my wife has passed away. I know you know this but I say it in case someone who doesn't know reads the post) conservative Christians but her experiences with God were different than mine and sometimes her understanding was different than mine. She had experiences that I have no parallels for but I attacked reading and studying the Bible in a way that she didn't. Our understandings complemented and helped each other, but God spoke to us differently.
Thanks for your answer, Chris. I appreciate it. I posed this question for soldout (and a few others, not necessarily including you because you and I have a good understanding of one another) for a specific purpose.
Why do you think god spoke to both of you differently? Why not communicate with everyone the same way? All these people claiming to have a direct relationship with god, but their version of God always seem to be different. Some claim direct communication (I know you don't) while some are just given stuff they pray for. If Christians are right, why doesn't God just tell the Muslims they are wrong, they claim to have a direct relationship with God as well.
Why do we not communicate with one another exactly the same way?
I have an answer. The answer is that we have different relationships with one another on different levels. We also have different understandings of one another and the world around us.
With this in mind, God also speaks to us (so to speak) in different ways as according to our understanding as well.
Sure individuals have different relationships, but seeing and hearing people communicate with with each other the same way.
There are common methods of communication, but there are also some differences as well when you consider the individual you are dealing with. For example, knowing you have a learning challenge did all of your teachers give you exactly the same lesson that they gave others or did some of them tailor their lesson to accommodate your slight difference?
Actually, my learning disabilities went undetected, but my kid with learning disabilities does have accommodations, but he is communicated to the same way. Words and gestures. If God can be heard inside our heads then he can do that for all especially if he is omni everything.
That would imply atheists have learning challenges when it comes to religion. Sorry, your analogy fails.
Actually, I implied no such thing. I am glad Rad understood what I was speaking of when I mentioned learning challenges. Sorry, your point fails in this regard.
What? You said learning challenges, those were your words.
I know what I said. But Rad Man (whom I was addressing) understood what I meant
I get that, but Deepes used the term "learning challenges" to describe those who aren't getting the message from God, which would immediately imply atheists have "learning challenges" when it comes to a relationship with God.
That's like saying someone who doesn't hear voices in their heads must be "talking voices in the head" challenged. Ridiculous.
To quote one of your favorite statements... baloney.. I did no such thing. Why must you lie about me?
I believe in the case he was referring specifically to my learning disabilities (dyslexia) as seen by my response. I don't believe he is one to think we are lacking something that prevents us from commutation with Peter Pan. He was trying to demonstrate that according to him God speaks differently to people because individuals are individuals. I don't agree, but that's okay.
Thank you, I dislike using the term disability.
No. I do not believe atheists are lacking anything at all in the decisions that you are making that is best for your life. Each of you appear to be very happy, healthy, and fulfilled in your lives.
There are several things that fundamentally are the same in communication, but change as according to the individual.. Look at my specific exchanges with you and ATM. I used plain English and words that both of you understand perfectly, but I do not address the two of you EXACTLY the same way because you are individuals and my relationship is different with each of you just like your relationship is different with me than it is with Chris, Beth, and others so your communication is different with each of us. Whether it is the respect that is offered and given, there is still a different level of respect and as such different responses as according to that respect.
We all communicate in exactly the same way. Typed English. I believe there is another reason believers get communication from God in different ways, simply put God reside in the mind only and it's up to the mind to get the message to the ego as to what it wants from the ego. The mind goes about this in any way that the ego will except. Some claim to have direct dialogue while others just get stuff after prayer, but nobody ever has any information that they couldn't get from there own brain. The day someone does get information that they couldn't have, I'll pay attention. Many make big claims, but can't produce when pushed and then claim it doesn't work that way after just telling me it does work that way.
Learning disability is now the proper terminology, dyslexia, which is but one learning disability is no longer used by professionals.
Ok. But there is a difference between language and communication, You communicate in a language but still different in HOW you communicate in that language. For example, do you speak to a toddler exactly the same way you communicate to an adult?
I understand what you mean, here. I'm just so used to the term disability meaning what cannot be done. You appear to have learned a lot throughout your life. This is why I use the term difficulty in certain cases.
Exactly RM, the only way there can be miscommunication that would cause tens of thousands of various interpretations would be due to God having a lack of language comprehension skills. He simply has no clue how to communicate simple ideas.
As an example, you don't communicate with me the same exact way you communicate with other Christians (Like Beth, for example). with you and I, we have had a lot of pretty reasonable and rational discussions regarding various topics within religion. With Beth, though, you laugh at her beliefs often (even when she is trying to be reasonable) which she responds emotionally and then it breaks down to debate.
Sorry, that analogy fails, I do not speak to anyone differently, I speak to all identically. It is called the written English language and we are using it to communicate with each other. If there is something that differentiates one person to another regarding this form of communication, I for one would want to hear it.
It doesn't fail.. In general, you are using the English language, true, but the difference is in the word choice, the tone of the posts, and your understanding of the individual you are addressing. The communication style changes, not the language itself
Baloney. The choice of words to explain something can only be based on the definitions of the very words one chooses for the explanation.
Tone of posts? What "tone" does God use? Irrelevant.
Understanding the individual? That has absolutely nothing to do with the explanation itself.
Who cares about the communication style? It is entirely irrelevant to the explanation.
What "styles" does God have?
Sorry DM, you're going to come up with some actual valid reasons, none of what you are saying makes any difference at all to an explanation and the understanding thereof.
It truly is amazing how believers will get to a certain point trying to offer explanations for their claims and when faced with reality, this is what we get; dishonesty. Sad.
I offered an explanation, you responded. I understand what you were saying while rejecting my comment.. All that's left is to say okay since the conversation has reached its end point and I have no desire to get into a back and forth debate with you on this particular subject.. so... Ok, ATM
It's interesting how adamant you are that the one hearing the statement is infallibly incapable of not understanding what is said, that the fault lies completely and wholly with whoever is making the statement.
Which explains a lot about you.
If there were one only correct interpretation of Christianity that we all acknowledged, agreed and accepted as the ultimate truth, I would agree with you.
Of course, what you said didn't really respond to what I said.
Kind of, but not quite.
Scenario 1: God says to Sara Lou and Mary Lou "Any kind of outward clothing that is not a skirt or a dress is forbidden for a woman to wear. Pants are only appropriate for men. I command that you obey this. You must follow my commands because I am your God. "
That's a pretty clear statement, correct? Doesn't matter who you are, your amount of education, where you grew, how you grew up, what your society has to say about it, what feminists have to say about it. Doesn't matter what your personality type is or what you'll think of God because of the rule. Women have to wear skirts/dresses and men pants. It's clear as day, and easy for anyone to understand, regardless of the language. If there's a society where they don't have exact translations for these words (skirts/dresses, pants), pictures can be provided so that everyone is on the same page. If not exact words for man or woman or forbidden or commands (more pics, demonstrations, etc, you get the idea). It's quite possible to make sure everyone's on the same page.
Scenario 2: God says to Sara Lou "yes, only women can wear skirts/dresses and men pants," but then to Mary Lou "well, actually it doesn't really matter."
Would that not be confusing? Then Sara Lou's goes out in the world saying, "hey ladies, only skirts and dresses!" And Mary Lou says "Hey ladies, it actually doesn't really matter!" Now there's division between the groups. Those who listen to Sara Lou and those who listen to Mary Lou. What are non-believers to think? Does it matter or does it not? Why can't two people who supposedly hear from God agree? Would it be so off the wall for us to think they aren't talking to same person? Especially because you can replace skirts/dresses vs pants, to much larger theological issues.
I understand what you're saying. And I understood what ATM was saying. But I'm not just referring to that. Because often, and I dealt with this with Riddie as well, I would say something to him that was pretty clear in what I said and he would go off in a different direction. Or claim that I had made no explanation of it at all.
However, if you want to get technical about linguistics, semiotics and received revelation, I don't think that particular example holds up. There are many instances where specific and explicit instructions were given the Jews at a particular time and in a particular place that then didn't apply to people who were/are not Jews, or not living in that particular place at that specific time.
And there are plenty of instances where "rules" that really won't get you into Heaven are still presented as iron-clad by one group but not by another. That's not God, that's men.
Human beings crave clarity and I'm no different but having thought about it for twenty-six years I've realized that absolute clarity on every single thing is not going to happen in our lifetimes. And may not even be desirable, because as Jesus himself pointed out it's not our job to decide who gets in and who is kept out.
And if any little point (and in the great scheme of things, skirts are a little point unless it can be shown in the Bible where God said, "Skirts or burn, woman") is enough to make people think that religious people don't know what we're talking about at all, then only a revelation from God would make them think otherwise.
Although I believe I've said that before...
That may be the fault of the presenter who has a poor capacity to effectively communicate, which is the issue with your God, a very poor communicator.
So what? Irrelevant. We are talking about your religion, not the Jews.
Yes, your religion was created by men, how very honest of you to admit that.
That's your excuse? Extremely lame.
Yet, believers will make sure they have their opinions on that matter well heard.
A) And maybe it's the fault of those who insist on not thinking about the communication. You seem to be good at that.
B) If you can't see the relevance then that explains our inability to communicate in a nutshell. Christianity did not begin with Paul, or Jesus. The history of Judaism is intrinsic to it. If you accept that, then you can understand what I'm saying even if you don't agree. If you reject that out of hand then, well, that does mean it's not the fault of the presenter if you don't comprehend what is said.
(And for the picayune out there, yes, Christianity technically didn't start before Jesus, but my point is that an understanding of Jewish history and the OT is essential to a full understanding of Christianity.)
C) I didn't say that. But then, we both know that, don't we?
D) Ah, your true colors show through...
E) It's almost a given by now that such statements are the very height of irony from you, but there it is nonetheless...
Don't mistake that just because everyone doesn't experience God the same way means that everyone has a radically different, or even contradictory, experience.
There's an awful lot that is not gone into here because of lack of time, space, sleep or just the fact that it's pretty obvious that certain people (not referring to you) are simply waiting for any little thing they can pounce on, no matter how specious it might be.
But to partially answer your question, all your kids don't experience you the same way. I don't think I ever learned how many you have, but say you have three (like I do) and you gather them together and give them a lecture about family safety in the house. Assuming that they are all roughly the same age, intelligence and maturity, you will still probably get three very different responses to you speech. That's not a whole lot different from how it is when mulitple Christians speak of their experiences. We are all individuals and God deals with us as such.
I get that Chris, but I speak to all three with my voice and gestures. Why would a God do any different? If he truly communicates then why doesn't he straighten out the ones who are wrong. Jews, Christians and Muslims can't be all right, why don't the Jews and Muslims get a message that they've got it wrong? Both these groups seem to be as sure as Christians and both make similar claims.
Well, Rad, I think that Christian's think the Bible, especially the NT, is enough for everyone. That this is how God spoke to everyone, Jews and Muslims not needing to be singled out. Although ironically the NT says that Jesus came for the Jews first, but. Eh.
So God isn't all powerful? I'd imagine something that can bring a being into existence can also take it out of existence.
What is the origin of God? No one know where either of them came from.
I beg to differ, Claire. We do know where each of those comes from.... the human mind. Period.
Lol. In order to know for certain God and Satan don't exist one must be omniscience and, well, that is impossible.
Not omniscience but intelligence and the ability to use it what is needed.
How does one's intelligence completely negate the existence of God?
Because god is a meaningless term that do not signify anything.
You mean according to YOUR understanding God is a meaningless term that doesn't signify anything.
According to the "lack of proper definition" of god. For some it is a creator, for others it is self, for some the sun, some it is a stone.... There is nothing called god it is either a concept or specially selected objects by humans.
I'm referring to God, the Father of Jesus and them being one entity. That is something you don't understand.
Jesus was a human supposed to have lived 2000 years before, is he god?
Or His foster father god?
What is "god"?
Well what you do not understand but have on;y a notion by what was taught you, you obviously cannot say.
He was God in the flesh. He has always existed spiritually:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
God, specially the Father of Jesus and Him being the same with Him at the same time, is a supreme being responsible for creation and the epitome of good who died for His people through Jesus. God assumed the role of the father and son.
This obviously would not make sense to and that is only because you don't know Jesus Christ.
I was taught about Jesus growing up. However, the gospels only were validated when I learnt more about him due to personal circumstances. Without communicating with God and seeing how He works makes the gospels quite meaningless. In order to know how God works, one must know Satan and that is a burden. I got my house blessed three years ago. Ever since then awful things have happened to my pets. Satan is threatened with blessings and will try and make my life a living misery. It has got to the point where I don't find much meaning in my life but to serve God. Only God gets me through pain.
Is it you who are speaking or us it "supernatural"?
What you say is nothing but nonsense that I don't even know were to begin. I'll venture to detail it once I get time. Anyway don't quote nonsense written by ancient charlatans as proof, I don't give a damn about such books.
And you know what they say about people who communicate with non-existent beings?
OK let's see
When you say flesh, I can agree he exist, then what has 'spirit' got to do with it? Is their any god in stone? So was it jesus that existed or god?
Beginning of what?
Word is just a sound or symbol(s) that represent the sound which is meaningful only to the one who can understand that language. So what was that 'word'? Which language? With whom god was talking for him to have language? Was their air around him for the sound?
Either god spoke a word or somebody spoke a word to god, so which one? Or was their an air column around god that continuously vibrate to produce the 'word'?
So god was just the vibration of air?
Do you know the meaning of father and son? They are not the same. If you say so it is nonsense.
Good, so what did he create? How did he do it? How had all the things vanished in the past for god to create? How did the things, that god is made of, escaped that fate?
Good is a human concept and is different for each person and may even be contradictory, so what is this 'epitome' of good? Or is he epitome of what you consider good?
What is death? How did god die? Is sleeping for two days death? What happened when god died?
Was it a drama to 'assume'? For what purpose, simply to make a fool of himself?
The only way one can know about this jesus is through gospel and it says about a marxist who walked with the scum of the society and who had no idea how the world worked, who plagiarised some of the ideas of buddhists.
That is called confirmation bias. That is the same reason that validates muslims, Hindu, buddhists... scripture. So all those are true? And that is specifically why such nonsense should not be taught to children because they cannot critically analyse what is taught and will accept all those nonsense as true and waste their life later.
So one has to hallucinate to make gospel meaningful?
Why, is it satan who wrote the book about god?
So what was that blessing worth?And your god couldn't do a damn about it?
Get professional help will be my advice, it appears your god is impotent to help you. And what serving are you doing?
So all those who believe in God are idiots? That's a lot of idiots around. It's amazing how there is an order in life at all with all these idiots running about.
There is order among less intelligent species. It does not need intelligence to have order but only the willingness to follow.
We are talking about idiots. Mental retardation.
Look, if you want to believe believers are idiots then go for it. I'm not going to have sleepless nights about it.
We are talking about idiots- stupid or foolish or ignorant people(that is low intelligence) not necessarily mentally retard.
Idiots are people who follow(believe) others without ever questioning the logic or rationale of it. Believers are people who believe others without ever questioning the logic of rationale of it. So idiot=believer.
It is not difficult to keep order among people who will blindly believe and follow.
What about those who do question it, researched what they were told, but still believe after they have found their answers?
Are they believing after knowing that it is illogical? Then you yourself decide.
If they find it as a logical/rational conclusion they are not 'believing' are they? It is their conclusion. As I said earlier, god's existence is not dependent on our beliefs, but is independent of it. And 'believing' is what confidence that the other person's says is true.
So are you saying that all Christians have lower intelligence? There aren't any smart Christians?
If they are really Christians, I doubt their intelligence.
Claire, no one is calling you stupid, that is not the point here.
Yes, there are many smart Christians, but those very same smart Christians do not approach their religion with the same smartness, so to speak. They don't think the same kind of reason and rationale they exhibit for everything else in their life applies to their religion, so they disregard their own brains in favor of their faith.
I didn't say he is a calling me stupid. I am asking if he thinks that. Clearly he thinks that those who truly believe are of lesser intelligence.
You make a sweeping statement. Don't fall into the trap of generalizing. Just consider for one moment there are those who know things you don't and most likely will never know.
I don't think so..... he at least makes us all think a bit more beyond the obvious. That is an important function he serves.
Ridiculing Christians day in and day night is non productive.
Didn't you say you weren't a Christian? Besides, it is Christianity that is ridiculed, not Christians.
You do try and demean Christians on this page. Your sneering smiley faces prove it.
HMMM.. I am a Christian. Now ATM and I don't agree a whole lot, but I don't remember a time where he had at any point or time attempted to demean me personally. He has expressed strong opinions regarding my beliefs, but never in a way that made me feel like it was a personal dig at me. I think the biggest issue that most people have with ATM is the fact that he has very little filter on his thoughts and opinions at times. But one thing I've learned is that really, his approach sometimes is dictated by your response to it as well as your approach to conversation with him. Now of course I will be ostracized by my fellow Christians for speaking up for ATM, but oh well. When dealing with ATM, one either needs to thicken their skin, adjust their approach (Which few will be willing to do), or simply not respond to whatever he says.
I can understand that, being void of superstitions and childish fantasies, they would be a waste of time for you.
Do you use your logic and reasoning before accepting any statement made by any person?
I do not know whether you are stupid or not, for I can only read the statements made by you here, not you. I have to admit that most of them are nonsense(illogical and irrational), but humans show an uncanny ability to keep god related statements in a special part of their brain that is immune to reason and logic but can clearly use logic and reason in all other spheres of their life.
So if you are using the same logic you are using here in the religious forum in all your life activities(that I cannot comment because I do not know you) you are stupid, but if you are using this only in the god sphere, then you have "low intelligence related to religion" only.
And studies says that it is the less educated and low intelligent ones(and the associated feeling of lack of control over ones life) that are more "religious". Add to that hyperreligiosity is more common among psychotic patients.
Give me an example of how much logic I apply in the logical forum could coincide with my every day activities? You can't compare everyday activities with the supernatural. One is earthly and the other is not.
I can say that I'm not of low intelligence. I have debated plenty with you. And I'm most certainly not psychotic.
And I can say that I not debating with a supernatural but a plain human. I told you before but you won't listen, the "supernatural" can be a fool to kill himself to forgive others but as I am not debating with a supernatural but a human, the human's argument should be bound by reason and logic. And I can also say that you do not apply any logic here in this forums.
"He cares about what we want. Do you want to be forced to worship God?"
Being forced to serve God if you take the Bible to be his word is exactly what you have been subjected to. According to the scriptures there are only two "choices" either you serve God or you don't. One option promises rewards in heaven and eternal life in the presence of God and the other comes with the threat of eternal torment in hell.
That's like putting a gun to someones head and saying you have only two choices: you can call me master and do everything I tell you to do or you can or you can endure an eternity of agonizing torture without being able to die. That is not an option nor free will it is a threat and an ultimatum.
Depending on how you view your life.. LOL.. There may be some that do not care one way or the other whether the trigger is pulled or not.
That's fine, but that doesn't diminish the fact it is still a threat.
Obviously you don't seem to get what I meant with that analogy. The Biblical view of life is not life at all. Based on the Bible we are all born with a sin debt owed to God which we could never fulfill. Only through the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord (master) and savior can we be redeemed and reconciled with God.
The very language used in the Bible about mans relationship to God is that same language used when one speaks of slavery. As a Christian you are a "servant" of the Lord (master). Your so called free will is only applicable to your choice to submit to God's will once you do so your will then is to do God's will and live in a manner that is pleasing to him.
The Bible speaks about obedience and disobedience and just like a human slave master would punish a slave for not obeying with lashed or even hanging your God punishes man for the same offenses namely disobedience. Except God's punishment is not just in life but follows you into death making your god worse than any monster that man could ever imagine. Your religion is entirely based on fear. You don't believe me read if for yourself.
4“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." Luke 12:4-5 (NIV)
This verse and others like it warn you to fear God
Check this out..
For every love qoute you cherry pick out of the Bible I can pick as many or more quotes of menace and hate from the same book!
Ok if you want , I am not stopping you ...Go ahead and quote as many as you can!...
Read the word of God carefully, otherwise you might miss out some !!!
I've read it four times in its entirety including once in Spanish. I was a Pentecostal evangelist for four years with my own ministry before I accepted atheism. I've gone deeper than most Christians get into the spiritual matters of belief. That was from 1990-94' and I can now attest with certainty that it was and is all a delusion.
I actually did get it.. I was trying to be humorous.
People sometimes over complicate things. God wants a relationship with us. we either accept it or not. Hell is eternal separation from God. This results in torment (not torture) being eternally separated from God's grace and goodness. This is nothing like the gun to the head scenario. also to answer the question of God not destroying Satan. God doesn't destroy his creations. And please don't bring up the flood or anything else like that. Just because God to their lives on earth doesn't mean they are destroyed for eternity. Eternal live is something i think a lot of atheist have a hard time grasping. Also Satan is the great tempter, but mans deeds and thought are evil anyway. The bible does say man prefers darkness over light. This is why Jesus pays the debt of mankind in doing, we might be able to reconcile with God and establish the relationship with him that he longs for.
I've been there and done that. How do you know what God wants? First of all so called divine revelation is not a valid means of obtainiing knowledge. Thomas Paines summed it up nicely in 'The Age of Reason'
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it."
Not to mention the fact that the majority of the BIbles authors are unknown since most of their works were written by anonymous authors and have been edited and redacted. There are no existing original texts of the scriptures what we have are copies of copies of copies. None of the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts of the life of Jesus. In fact Mark was the first one composed and it is dated to about 65 or 70CE All three synoptic gospels were presented as anonymous works and were not given the names we know today till till the mid to late second century.
So basically everything you claim to know about God through the scriptures is worthless.
Why do people always bring up the bible is copies of copies blah blah. So what? That's pretty much how historical documents or found. That fact that we have so many copies just makes it more reliable. This is because we can compare the copies and correct the mistakes like a word left out in a certain area a grammatical error or a misspelling (which is what most of the differences are by the way). When people her of king tut they don't say. well all we have is copies of copies. also that mark was written in 65 of 70 also makes it pretty reliable.Document on many other historical figures aren't found within a life time of their passing. People seem to have unrealistic standards for the bible. Jesus was right when he said even if Moses came back to life , you still wouldn't believe.
None of the historical figures performed magik either.
Interesting. Was there more than one Moses in the history of Israel? And if there were, which of those would the average Jew have immediately thought of if someone said "Moses"?
There is no Moses in the 'history' of Israel but there is one in its mythology.
I had really and truly forgotten how funny you are.
I'm sorry, I thought you already were attempting that.
I was not.
Mythology is a collection of stories with no historical basis(most of the time), or wildly exaggerated ,even if there is some historical basis but is thought to be true or 'nearly' true by the followers of the Myth. Moses is a mythical character, no Historical basis but thought to be true by those who follow the story.
Are you absolutely certain you were not attempting it?
Not with you.
I can't tell you something that is not in history as historical just to please you. Maha Bharatha is the greatest epic ever written and most Indians believe there is some historical basis for that story. I want it to be true because it's my past, but there is nearly no basis. So shall I say there is historical basis and get offended at anyone who say there is none?
Whether there was one or a million and one Moses in the history of Israel, the Hebrew Bible is the only source for the Moses who allegedly freed the slaves from Egypt.
Well, at least you didn't completely sidestep the question.
The point I was making is that when Jesus referred to "Moses" there would have been only one who everyone would have understood the reference to (a point which you apparently agree with me on.) Riddie posed the question, "Which Moses?" implying that there would likely have been more than one. I asked for clarification (I wasn't even making fun of him!) I forgot how humorless he is.
I don't try comedy in a serious discussion. He was talking as if Moses was a real figure.
That's a point you might have clarified in the first place instead of launching into a diatribe.
My asking that question and your prolonged and angry-sounding response is the very definition of humorless.
Which, if you appreciate Python and the Goons, can be the funniest of all.
I know that I'm probably going to be endlessly amused and not at all enlightened by this, but if it was not addressed to me then why was it in a response to one of my posts?
The comment "which Moses" was not addressed at you.. but 'CHRISTIANANRKIST', you came in between and asked how many Moses I knew. If the comment that I replied was made by you, I might have replied in a different way. I can't help if you are getting offended at comments made to other people.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/113849? … ost2442175
Offended? No, I didn't get offended at all.
Yes, I did jump into a conversation you had with someone else. That doesn't mean that you didn't then choose to direct comments at me. If you choose to reply to me with comments not meant for me, then I can hardly be blamed if I failed to understand that.
I explained moses is not historical and I gave you the reasons some time before. Do I got to retype all that? The only difference that happened after that was I got two more books on history to refer(but nothing to change my view).
You may have perfect recall but I don't. And most people don't. And I can't read your mind. First you say that you're actually talking to someone else and now you say you're simply picking up a conversation we had weeks or months ago.
I'm not angry or accusing when I say this, but if that is the case then you could not be more confusing if you purposely set out to be.
I was talking to someone else when you intervened. I replied to you thinking that you might be remembering our conversation(it;s only a few weeks before). As I speak only to a few people I mostly remember the conversations, but now I see that you do not.
So it is like this, Moses (David and solomon) story is just like the mythological stories of other people, We have not got any evidence to substantiate that. And what we have is different from what is said in bible. Most history textbooks(written by christians) acknowledge it as a true story, but as a footnote write that we have no evidence. It is just like Indian historians saying that Mahabharata is a true story without any evidence[Because they grew up hearing that it is true], while foreign historians with no emotional baggage see it mostly as a story only.
And you had asked me my reference, then I said J. M Roberts and Susan Wise Beuer. Now I have Herodotus histories(in book format, earlier I only had ebook) and one other history book(by Chris Herman) to add to the list(that was the change I mentioned).
[This book "A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 to 313 by Marc Van De Mieroop" also says the same, I dtn't mention it because I will get the book only by next week(but a preview can be read in amazon)].
I'll respond to the rest later, but let me say that that phrase "only a few weeks before" is the clincher. No, I didn't remember, and still don't remember. I too only speak to a few people but some I speak to fairly consistently and if we go a few weeks in between, and this would go for anyone, I don't remember. I have way too much going on right now, I can barely keep the days straight sometimes. So please, if it's been more than a few days, just assume I don't remember.
Oh yes Christian, you are absolutely right!
yeah, we have a lot of copies, but you have to look at the dates which those copies are FROM. We have nothing from the 1st century, however, and most of what we have from the 2nd century are fragments. Not books. Not manuscripts - fragments - like the famous P52, which is a fragment from the gospel of John which is the size of a credit card. The only complete word on the entire fragment (it is double sided) is the word for "and".
How do you find a manuscript written 35-40 years after Jesus supposedly died by someone who never met him - nor claimed to - reliable?
That's like telling a story to a friend, then having that friend tell it to fifty more people, who tell it to 50 more people, etc, and one of the people that was told the story five or six diatribes later deciding to write it down in 35 years. How close to the original story do you think it would be?
Additionally, we KNOW that there were revisions to the copies, because they don't agree. Stories like Jesus and the woman caught in adultery were added centuries later, and that can be demonstrated. We have manuscripts from the Dead Sea scrolls where scribes were in the middle of changing a story about one character into one of Jesus and it all got jumbled together when they buried the library (I don't remember who the story started out as - it was the Sophia of somebody and they were in the middle of making it about Jesus instead). I don't find that reliable in the least.
Sure we have lots of copies of the Odyssey etc, but no one is claiming that the Odyssey is the infallible word of a god, and no one is running around claiming that the mythical creatures in the Odyssey are true and that the stories genuinely happened, either.
Why do a lot of atheists focus on this? Because it's important. The bible is the only record available to teach about Jesus/God/What God Wants. If it's not a reliable source, then it can't accomplish that purpose, and if you can't demonstrate the fact that it's reliable or that the people that wrote it knew what they were talking about, then the entire house of cards falls around you and you have nothing except for feelings that your religion is true. Why wouldn't it be important?
That's not a good comparison. We know that the first copy of the Odyssey we know of wasn't written until 400 years AFTER Homer died. The letters from Peter and John ARE from people who claimed to have met Jesus when He walked the Earth.
'Revisions' is also a bit mis-leading. Yes, some of them were people who had made mistakes going back and rewriting what they had heard or copied to correct it. Some of it though isn't a revision. The sheer number actually works in favor of accuracy because then they can be checked against each other. And we do see where some things changed. There are sections of the Bible that come with notes about "This wasn't originally there".
The Odyssey, on the other had, did not have so many fragments and scraps and whole copies to compare to each other.
Odyssey is just like Bible, historical fiction. The magic in both books alone are enough to prove it.
How did you know that odyssey was written 400 years after when nobody really knows when Homer lived?
Letters of two fictional characters who supposedly saw jesus (peter and john) is proof of what? Yea they "claimed"!
And we know when was peter wrote 2nd century while according to 'tradition' peter died before 64 AD.
Aside from the fact that I wasn't talking to you, once I had read the first sentence I realized you're not really talking to me either. So I'll go back to talking to real people and you go back to talking to cardboard cutouts.
I wasn't setting out to compare the Odyssey to the bible - I used it by means of example. The Odyssey is a book of mythology - and that's kind of the point. No one thinks that it's true, and it's not a current religion with billions of followers, claiming to be the only "true" religion on the earth.
The letters from Peter and John are hotly debated. Although it is attributed to Peter, it is not uncommon for Biblical scholars to admit that it could be pseudonymous. The dating is off, since 1 Peter is generally attributed to after AD 81 - almost 20 years after church tradition claims that peter died a martyr. It is NOT a consensus to say that the apostle Peter actually wrote either of the epistles that bear his name. the epistles of John are equally debated - if not more so, and almost no biblical scholar (except for rigid fundamentalists) believe that the apostle John wrote the gospel attributed to him.
Some parts of the bible include commentaries about how passages weren't found (or were misplaced) in the earliest manuscripts, but your theory of reliability via comparison falls short, when you consider that there is over a 100 year gap where nothing can be compared because nothing exists. The earliest complete manuscripts differ from each other from as much as spelling errors to the use of different (sometimes opposing) words and the addition of entire passages, but they're still nothing more than copies of copies of translations of copies that no longer exist. We have the church fathers referencing various books of the canon, but even their quotes don't exactly line up with what we find in the earliest copies of biblical texts that are presently known.
But you missed something! The other words on the fragment were: "You gotta believe, Man!"
the key difference between the Bible stories and Egyptian hieroglyphs are that the hieroglyphs are not so full of supernatural miracles, and there is more evidence for ancient Egyptian historical events than the oral tradition that is now the Bible.
Well - which is it? Did Jesus pay the debt that god forced us to carry or do we have to actually believe garbage in order to spend eternity in the majik kingdom after we are not dead?
To be honest I'm not sure which part you didn't understand. Yes, Jesus paid or debt. Not sure how you didn't catch that one. I also don't see how God forced us to carry a debt. Do you even know what that means? You don't get forced to owe somebody something, you just owe based on you're actions. I also love how you use the term magic (not majik) kingdom. That is actually pretty funny but that's not the christian belief. The belief is we spend eternity with or creator. If that isn't what you want then its your choice. Why be so hateful though towards people who do choose that?
It is true that you either serve God or not but what is the alternative to serving God? It is serving Satan in though in most cases it is unwittingly and indirectly. Hell is the complete absence of God. If you don't want to be with God then Satan will claim you. God is not handing you over to Satan. He does everything in His power to avoid that like taking on our sin.
Funny. I don't remember choosing Satan as my leader.
No, not everybody consciously chooses Satan as their leader. When we sin we hand Satan the power. So we enable him and cooperate with him. If one does not choose Jesus as their saviour they are doing exactly what Satan wants them to do.
Take for example a corrupt politician. If we see he does evil and we just ignore that and continue to support him still erroneously believing he has their best intentions at heart then those people are indirectly giving him power by not condemning him.
How many people condemn the West for supporting those murderous Free Syrian Army. Take for example Obama and Cameron. They are committing war crimes by supporting them but how many people will condemn them and not give them any votes?
That's all Satan needs to thrive. People who don't challenge him and don't expose evil and condemn it.
Claire, for the first time I can agree with your metaphor.
If that's the case then Christians are aiding and abetting Satan by not challenging God for his evil deeds towards humanity. Although I am pretty sure that the majority of the tales in the Bible are false and mythological I will use them as examples.
He destroyed the entire world once, supposedly led the Hebrews on a Caananit conquests which involved slaughtering whole towns including men, women, and children. he destroyed the towns of Sodom and Gamorrah, killed all the firstborn sons of Egypt including livestock. So why aren't believers calling their God on these horrendous acts?
Why are believers not questioning the lies about most of the OT? It is based on pagan nonsense. The literal translation says God is a singular word for ETs. Moses interacted with ETs not God.
I find it horrendous to try and point this out to Christians yet they side step the issue.
But when we repent we take that power back and return it to God, do we not?
How many people do you think truly repents? Not enough to disable all of Satan's power. And, of course, people repent but are human and sin again.
if you don't believe in (Angels, Devils, Faeries, Eleves, Elementals, Nature Spirits, Woodland Creatures, etc) they will cease to exist.
The only people who choose Satan as their leader are called Satanists. The only reason you say 'not everybody consciously' chooses is because we're not consciously following you. Anyone can say that to get their way. What's next? we stop being human beings too?
First you must prove that your god, his son, and Satan exist.
It's called the burden of proof and since you are making an absolute claim that God exists it's up to you to provide evidence of that. You actually can't prove it objecitively or emperically. The reason for this is that you believe in God based on faith which requires no evidence. Also, conveniently your god supposedly exists outside of the reach of scientific scrutiny.
Then don't worry about it. Move on. Why do you atheists care what we believe anyway? Get a hobby.
Because the beliefs affect everyone even in a supposed secular society and if left unchecked could start the downfall of a society as it did during the middle ages and the last 700 years in Muslim countries.
So do many other things. Mostly it's just the goverments themselves. Religion is just one way a government controls populations and society. It's the power hungry jerks with no morals that are the problem. Right now, it is big corporations that control society,religion these days is almost like an afterthought.
I do see what you're saying though,and it has merit.
I think it is the ones in power, not the religion itself that causes the problems.
Religion an after thought in America? I'm not American, but I can tell you it's not an after thought in America. Every presidential candidate has to reveal his religious thoughts and they are debated at length.
I don't think religion has any real power in the US. Not anymore.
I totally thought you were an American. Do you mind if I ask where you're from?
Did you miss the war against prop 8 and gay marriage in California that was completely funded and organized and funded by the Mormon church in league with the religious right and the moral majority? How about the state level war on women's reproductive rights, or the attempts to teach creationism in public schools. How about the lawsuits from the good news clubs? How about the fact that in a recent survey, over 60 percent of Americans said they wouldn't vote for an atheist - even if they agreed with their political platform?
Corporations have WAY more power than any organized religion.
These issues are FLUFF issues. They are there to distract sheep from what is real while they strip away your rights and screw you from behind.
I am not saying the issues themselves are fluff in any way. Just that they are DESIGNED by politicians and corporations with the REAL POWER to distract you emotionally.
Just a note for you, I am bisexual and that particular issue is important to me,I am NOT downgrading it.
I don't think scientific education/research and individual equality are fluff issues.
I chose a bad word when I said "fluff". What I meant was issues designed to create an emotional response.
The truth is, WE, as common people, no longer have any political power. The whole game is rigged.
These issues are important. But we have absolutely no control in how they are decided.
I agree with janesix, I think big corporation ,insurance companies, etc is the only real opposition to Gay marriage and much more, however Religious organizations are standing out in front taking all of the credit/blame for their supposed victories. I would think that most Christians have gay or lesbian relatives whom they love very much and would not care if they were given the right to have a marriage ceremony with their significant other. Because the minority of Christians are vocal about many issues, ALL Christians are getting the credit/blame for things which none of us have little if any power over.
It is a shell game politicians and big business is playing ON us all. If they can keep us fighting over that stuff .... We pay no attention to the other stuff they are doing.
There ya go. Blame it on some one else. Like a real Christian. lol
Well If If it did happen and I didn't do it. who did ?
Tha only answer I got is somebody else ??
Unless you got a better answer ...?.. guess that is the only one I got?
Like I said. Or - you could man up and take personal responsibility? What do you think? I am going with "no" - it is everyone else.
What is it that you think I am personally responseible for ???
If I did it I'd stand up and claime it
Nah - it is everyone else innit? Or - maybe, just maybe - it is you pontificating about the prophecies? IDK?
No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts. Well - not yours - it ain't yours issit? It is them beleebers wot int gettit.
Here is just one example of the differences in the two sister countries.
We don't care what religion the Prime Minister participates in and we certainly don't care at all about his family. I'd be willing to guess about 90% of Canadians don't know the name of the Prime Minister's wife. We simply don't care, we didn't elect her.
Good point. Here's a question, what role does the Prime Minister's wife play in the politics of the country? I'm not saying that America hasn't almost always had a fascination with the First Lady (is there an equivalent monicker for the Prime Minister's wife?) because they've almost always been very strong-willed people who set about helping their pet causes. But starting with Rosalynn Carter, the unspoken assumption that the First Lady has indirect influence became the practice of some to actually directly affect politics. And since the First Lady is NOT elected, this has not sat well with many people.
I think the only Prime Minister's wife most people still know is Maggie Trudeau. And her more because of her sort of free-wheeling, hippy-dippy lifestyle and the divorce than because of any politics she was actually involved in.
If the Prime Minister's wife is involved in something I don't know anything about it. You are right about Margaret Trudeau making a name for herself. She was the only one anyone payed any attention to and it was only because she was caught partying with the Stones.
I don't know if Prime Minister's wives just keep a lower profile, but in America the President's wife most certainly does not.
I don't think my beliefs affect world stability.
The cause for the downfall of a society and humanity as a whole will be, and has always been the greed of those in power. One nation or group wanting to take the wealth of another.
If we could affect the beliefs of those few who are in power, our efforts might be well spent.
I don't think anyone has changed anothers opinions using the techniques and style of debate such as ATM is capable of.
Several hundred years ago Iran/Iraq was the centre of the scientific world, until someone said it conflicts with Islam and today they teach there children that evolution has been debunked.
It's not like that ...
They were defeated by the Europeans,
so they are what they are now...
The Islamic Golden Age is an Abbasid historical period beginning in the mid 8th century lasting until the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258.
Have you never read history?
In addition to what Rad Man stated, even centuries later the Europeans trembled on hearing the name Ottoman (Turk) and one of the them was defeated by Timur a descendent of the Mongols. Timur ignored Europe only because of its poverty.
When islam was in its heights the Christian Europe was just like a barbarian land.
I have done a research on that topic, "Islamic golden age".
There are so many views on how it decline. You cannot just go ahead and copy paste from the internet.
The historians are still not sure about what exactly happens, but the general muslims are blaming the european invaders for the decline.
Because that is the most recent and the one in memory.
Your still not getting it. It doesn't matter what happened there religion is stoping them from moving forward. Religion does that because it teaches us to think there is a limit to what we can do rather then attempting to figure stuff out.
There are 1.4 Billion Muslims 20% of the worlds Population
Total Nobel Prizes = 8 (1 in physics, 2 in medicine)
There are 13.2 million Jews 0.2% of the worlds Population
Total Nobel Prizes = 166
Can you see the difference? What can we learn from the statistics?
When islam was in its heights the Christian Europe was just like a barbarian land.
Yes you are right!
But Christian Europe became powerful and defeated the islamic kingdom, and still now we can see that the Europeans are still ahead in almost every field.
So are you saying the Jews(Judaism) are more developed than the Muslims(Islam)?
I think the key message there is that Muslims are generally more religious than their Jewish counterparts. Jewish agnosticism/atheism is a well known and popular phenomenon, the same cannot be said for Islam.
Einstein is a good example of that.
So, one should become a Jew, and follow the old testament and this world will be a better place!
Because those beliefs are not kept behind closed doors where they belong and affect negatively the society in which I live.
A Troubled Man wrote:
Because those beliefs are not kept behind closed doors where they belong and affect negatively the society in which I live.
= - = - =
That sounds like so many other bigoted statements made by many diffrent kinds of opinionated people.
I don't know about other atheists but I care what you believe in when it affects the laws of my state. When your only reason for discriminating against certain people is based on your beliefs in a mythical deity that you read about in an ancient book.
I care when I am told that although I don't believe in God a portion of my taxes are taken against my will to support your so called non-profit organizations. When your fellow believers try to force our schools to teach your superstitions as science in institutions of learning. When you wantonly discriminate against gay marriage and seek to stymie the progress of science in the name of superstitions. Otherwise I don't care at all what you believe.
I don't belong to an organized religion. Not all believers are Christians.
Good for you but this applies just the same to Islam, Judaism, etc.
The thing is that evidence for God and Satan is construed by believers must differently than those who don't. So I can give you evidence but you won't have the ability to be convinced it is from God.
I'm told that's what Mother Teresa thought as well, so she dedicated her life to helping people die a painful and sometimes needless death, but chose a different ending for her own life. I think your a little mixed up as to what's good and bad and to what choices people make.
No, you just don't understand what I'm saying.
People are not perfect, if you try to follow them , you might fall.. follow the perfect God.
The Biblical god is far from perfect! Just read the Bible all the way through and it will help you see his many flaws. The fact that he is the invention of man is reflected in his actions. The Bible is riddled with anthropomorphsm where God shares many of mans own defects. God is admitedly jealous, has quite the temper, feels grief, demanding, arrogant, and a whole slew of other negative human traits.
Are you 100% sure that you are absolutely right?
"I am a jealous God"
What more do you need. Do you even read your own book? God of the Bible is an ass. Didn't you notice that?
The Abrahamic God is the product of a simple, ignorant era where very few had any education. The vast majority were then philosophically and spirtually callow. Along with civilisation, one would expect that in the succeeding millenia God has evolved a great deal. Thus emotive responses to these events would be unrecognisably different today.
Absolutely! I agree. The concept of god has evolved considerably and it has done so because it has been forced to evolve or become irrelevant. In the Old Testament they believed in a three tiered world where God was in heaven meaning some realm in the clouds. But when man penetrated the clouds and found nothing there then they pushed him out to space. As man found no god in space then they pushed him to a realm that exists supposedly outside of space and time. Lol What will they think of next?
Are you saying that all the things that happened in the Bible that are historically proven are just a made up story?
Biblical stories are as real as any rubber band.
Ask God not me!
He did that.....
BTW I am sure you know how to get to God!!!
This goes against what the bible says. How can you tell anyone that they never get to God especially when they were once with God and left the father's house. God has the final word as to who will come to him so you cannot speak for him since you cannot know God's mind.
On idol worship: You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Exodus 20:5
The Lord hates! : There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: Proverbs 6:16
"See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand." Deuteronomy 32:39
Yes He is a jealous God!
Does that make you uncomfortable?
Are you jealous that many worship Him???
No, actually jealousy is a negative emotion that causes many to act irrationally. Your god demonstrated this quite well in the Bible several times. Jealous lovers do the same when they are in a relationship they act without thought and do stupid things.
This is your version. You have the right to hold on to your views.
But there are millions of people who believes in the word of God, so it will be wise of you to respect their views as well.
That's not my version all of that is in your Bible. You should try reading it some time. I respect everyones right to believe what they wish but when they try to force everyone else to believe or belittle everyone for not believing then I have a problem. If Christians would stop trying to abuse thier power as the majority here in the states by manipulating politicians and legislation in this country then no one would bother with it.
But when you tell me that it's wrong to allow gay marriages (not gay by the way) for instance basing yourself solely on your beliefs on what is written in some bronze aged ancient book whose authors lived in a barbaric society then I have something to say about that.
When you try to stymie the growth of scientific research and progress that is beneficial to society based on your beliefs I also have a problem with that. If it were not for the dominance of Christianity for so long science would have progressed in leaps and bounds by now. That's kind of hard to do when Christians were busy burning books and scientists at the stake for heresy. Which amounts to simply having an opinion contrary to what the church taught and believed.
"IN God we trust"
That includes you too....
You just can't live without it !!!
In GOD we trust was not added to the money until 1956 or the pledge of allegiance until 1948 (I can't remember the exact date) but it was in direct response to the threat of communism worldwide. It hasn't always been there, and it shouldn't be there now. What's interesting is where "under god" was added to the pledge. Originally it stated "one nation, indivisible" Now it says One nation, under god, indivisible - which is ironic because religion is one of the most divisive aspects of american culture.
You need to brush up on your history. start with the Treaty of Tripoli:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
THis is not about history!
Just pull out your wallet and you can see some notes, ..
What is written there, "In God we trust" ..
You need money to live, you just can't live without it!
Just a reminder !!
A: the qoute on the money was added recently and is not on most currency. B: You don't need American currency to live. C You don't need money at all to live (it's called barter humanity did it for thousands of years.)
Are you being wrong intentionally or...
I am talking about US dollar!
You are a good comedian ha ha!
ha ha money is not all you need to live, we can live even without a single penny, because our good God has provided us with so many things to sustain us lol!
"And Man said, 'Let us make God in our own Image.'"
"And Man said, 'Let us make EACH God to our own liking.'"
"And Man said 'Let each one of us make our own version of a god that is just as petty, narcissistic, and selfish as we are."'
That is the distorted version of the Bible. Read it carefully, hopefully you get some idea about what the enlightened people are experiencing. You will be shocked when you realize you have been missing out so much.
You're right, it is a distorted view of the bible, but it's a perfect view of reality.
"That is the distorted version of the Bible. Read it carefully, hopefully you get some idea about what the enlightened people are experiencing. "
Lmfao! enlightened? More like deluded.
So what is the (UN) distorted version of the Bible???
"So what is the (UN) distorted version of the Bible???"
Try reading about how the Bible came to be written, compiled, and canonized. Then read it in its historical contexts minus your religious bias and you just might get a glimpse of that the undistorted version of the BIble is. It was a very human work and that's why it is riddled with human errors, misinformation about astronomy and other sciences, and blatant contradictions. There is nothing divine about the Bible.
I see your point!
I became a Christian because of what He is to me. He is a living God, He lives in me.
I know you will not agree with me on this, that's absolutely fine...
It may not work for you but it works for me...
Does it offend you?
It doesn't offend me at all. If you would have asked me about Jesus in the days when I was in the ministry I would have probably replied as you have now. In those days I thought I felt God's presence around me at all times and felt the Holy Spirit residing in me renewing my mind. I was a Pentecostal evangelist and believed in miracles. My specialty in those days was deliverance from demonic forces. People testifid and claimed to having been healed through my ministry and I gave all the glory to God for using me in such a powerfful way.
That's why it was so hard for me to leave. It took me six years to get over the fear of the Lord, death, and hell. I was a committed believer of the gospel but when I read the Bible in its entirety for the first time it disgusted me and showed me God in a different light.
You have chosen to follow what you think is right.
At the same there are also other hardcore atheist who are now a committed Christian.
So the best thing we can do now is just be our self, and live our life the way we want to, instead of wasting our time in the debate which will never end.
"So the best thing we can do now is just be our self, and live our life the way we want to, instead of wasting our time in the debate which will never end."
This was a debate? I was unaware of that I thought we were just expressing our own ideas on the matter of belief. But the quote above is the best thing you have said this entire time. It's mature, sensible, and how I think everyone should live.
Yes, it's a debate, but with no ending!
It is alright as long as we respect the views of others, but almost everyone here including myself shows no respect for each other. So I thought this might be the best option.
Enjoy your life, Chatpilot!
It didn't appear to be a debate to me. I was enjoying your discussion
I see your point, respect what it means to you, personally. When such a deep personal conviction gets extrapolated to apply to everyone else that you get religions formed. Then, of course, the argument and the rigid positioning of "faith."
Then there can be no end to discord, fighting, mud-slinging and ultimate wars.
If that conviction you have leads you to deepen the awareness in your own life, fills your being with love and caring, then it will overflow on to others you meet. That is the only context in which I can give credence to the "holy spirit." It's something of quality that is shared around.
Man has certainly been trying. God has a way of reasserting Himself, though.
Psalms 14 says:
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,[a]
who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the Lord?
5 There they are in great terror,
for God is with the generation of the righteous.
6 You would shame the plans of the poor,
but[b] the Lord is his refuge.
7 Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
When the Lord restores the fortunes of his people,
let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad.
This is like quoting the Qu'ran to a Christian and expecting them to feel convicted. Not very effective if most of the readers don't see any validity in the book you're quoting.
Bible is the only document to prove the existence of God. Without bible it is almost impossible to prove the existence of God.
Believe in God, he will manifest in your life. Jesus is the only way for salvation.
Jesus Loves you. Jesus calling you. May God bless you
Please show us where exactly the bible proves the existence of God? I believe in him, but it is not because of anything in the the bible.
Why do you think your quote of Psalm 14 was meant to be universally applied to all of humanity at all times? It seems to me that the writer was commenting on the culture and situation of his contemporaries at that time. Take verses 3-5 for example. My next door neighbour is a fully signed up communist (yes they still exist) and an atheist, yet he is anything but corrupt, he does not oppress Jews (or Christians), and he is certainly not in terror because 'God is with the generation of the righteous'.
To take passages from the bible that were written by the authors to explicitly address some issue applicable to ancient Israel and the brutal World they lived in, and try to apply them to 21st Century civilised Western societies is meaningless.
I went under the moniker of 'fundamentalist-bible-believing-spirit-filled-Christian' for 25 years, yet in all that time I saw no evidence of the 'Believe in God, he will manifest in your life'. These are just meaningless memes. Since walking away from Church and the plastic manmade religion that calls itself Christianity today, I am happy, I am truly free. I am better off in every way: financially, practically, mentally, emotionally. You should try it.
Yes Jesus is the only way for salvation, but its a done deal, completed, "It is finished", for all people, man is just a bystander in this. You cannot threaten people with hell for not formally accepting what is already theirs even if they do not know it.
He is not threatening you.
He is sharing with you the good news, for you to make the right choice.
I never said he was threatening me. But what he is sharing (if I'm not mistaken) is 'turn or burn'. That is not the gospel.
your last post goes like this
"You cannot threaten people with hell for not formally accepting what is already theirs even if they do not know it."
So I was just trying to tell you, it is not a threat, but rather warning to anyone to not go in the wrong way. But if you choose to go your own way, God is not going to stop you, because you have the free will.
Anyway i understand your point...
Well I haven't read your other posts yet, so I don't know whether you are a believer, agnostic or an atheist?
I'm fully signed up to the blood covering of Jesus....I just don't believe the strings attached conditions that Christians like to add to this.
Disappearinghead is a universalist. He has found passages in the bible that basically supports the idea that no matter what happens here, Christ's death already reconciled everyone to God and heaven is a done deal
It will be great if he could quote those passages here.
And BTW, do you think he is right in saying that? Just curious...
The short answer is yes. He is right in saying that. That is his belief. Let me tread as lightly as possible here.. Remember that the bible does not have one author. The bible has at least 40 writers. They may have written under the inspiration of God but there are still 40+ different points of view. With this in mind, it is easy (and the several different denominations are proof of this) for Christians to hind certain points in the bible that resonates best with their specific point of view and outlook on life. But there are still some basic truths that all can agree on. Take you, me and DPH for instance. All three of us believe that salvation comes because of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. We also agree that God has the final word as to who will enter into heaven and who will not. The difference between us is in how we approach this word and prepare it for others. You (and a majority of other Christians) take an exclusive approach. You believe that salvation is available to all, but only given to those who believe. With this in mind, you are here to share the good news as well as warn others about hell and to repent, turn or burn, etc. DPH and other universalists approach is all inclusive. They believe that Christ's death covers the sins of ALL mankind and it doesn't matter what happens, we are all getting into heaven. My approach is an individualistic approach. Before I get into my current beliefs, let me first tell you that I understand you and Beth more than you think. Believe it or not, I used to think exactly like the two of you. The church I grew up in only taught old testament and new testament turn or burn. repent or you will go to Hell... etc. I was also taught that I was a lowly sinner that deserved hell. This had me so terrified as a child that if I made a mistake or committed what anyone told me was a sin, I would spend several days on my face crying in terror and repenting thinking I was on my way to hell for that one mistake. I was miserable and afraid of everything. In short, my life was miserable and I worshiped God out of abject terror. luckily for me, my mother stopped being able to take or send me to church for several years. When I went back, there was so much that seemed wrong to me that I went home and read and studied the Bible for myself. When I finally read the whole Bible, I felt a weight lift off of me. I realized that I was unable to see the bigger picture in God because I was using a very small frame. Now with my new learning of the bible, I learned that God has the final word and will judge people by what's in their heart. My approach is not about "watering the word of God down" (as Beth implies) nor is it about twisting the word of God in an effort to be liked (as you keep implying). It is about telling people what the word of God says, then letting them make their own mind up and do what they feel is best for them. After I give the word, whatever they do next is between them and God and not for me to speculate on because that is their chosen relationship with Him, not mine. The bible is not God's final word. God's final word will be given when we meet him face to face. Christians speak of God as being omnipotent, omnipresent, omni benevolent, etc. For us to state that his gift of salvation is only limited to Christians is to limit his benevolence and forgiving nature thus to diminish his power. So, like I said, I cannot say that DPH is wrong for universal reconciliation. I cannot say you are wrong for your methods because it is all based on something that is written in the bible. Ultimately, we all say that God's word is final. If we can hold that principle in mind, our mind will unlock a whole new world of possibility and free us of the shackles of living fearfully and living lovingly
Just a thought.
There are a number of biblical references I could quote that I believe support universal salvation/reconciliation, but I'm not sure there is anything to be gained by copying and pasting en masse from Biblegateway.com. Many of these passages were glossed over or given only a cursory look when I was in Church. I prefer to challenge exclusive salvation as individual points come up in the threads.
But at the end of the day, I must relate perceptions of what a loving Father in Heaven would do to what I would do with my children, which leads me to the conclusion that hell or an eternity separated from the Father is an anathema to fatherhood.
You need to start by asking yourself what you think hell is. Then ask yourself where this imagery comes from. The Old Testament makes no mention of hell at all, so if hell exists why does the OT not warn anyone about it? Throughout the OT the most severe punishment was death, but there is no mention of any post death punishment either. Indeed God tells Abraham he will rest with his fathers and yet earlier in Genesis we are told his fathers were idol worshipers.
Paul doesn't describe hell either, and certainly never warned the Gentiles of such a place.
Jesus never actually talked about hell. He mentioned Gehenna which is the Ben Hinom valley to the South of Jerusalem where all the city's rubbish was dumped along with the bodies of criminals. It was regularly set on fire to cleanse, purify and keep disease at bay. This valley was notorious in Jewish folklore as the place where ancient Israel burned their own children to death as sacrifices to pagan idols. Why would we suppose our Father would be such a hypocrite by doing the exact same thing? In Jewish superstition they believed that the dead entered a type of Gehenna for soul purification, something Jesus would have well been aware of when addressing the crowds, noting that he didn't change that belief.
He was probably also aware of the Roman/Greek mythology surrounding hell which was managed by Pluto/Hades. We can see that the Church adopted these pagan ideas for its own purposes and maintained the mythology to the present time, and teaching that Satan was its new landlord.
I find it interesting that brimstone is mentioned in the Revelation Lake of Fire as brimstone was used for its medicinal, anti-bacterial, and cleansing properties, by the people of that time, both in the practical use and in religious ceremony. This suggests to me that the Lake of Fire is the same testing of works that Paul talks about in 1 Cor 3. Seeing as God is described as a consuming fire, it seems to me that the Lake of Fire is none other than God himself, purifying souls as a refiners fire purifies precious metal.
So no I don't believe the Christian hell exists. It's an alien concept to the OT and Judaism; it has its roots in paganism; it contradicts the concept of judgement and justice; and does not represent what a loving Father would do with his children.
Interesting. I've never seen such an in depth explanation of why you don't believe in Hell. Wow. If I had known people like you, Deepes, and Motown just 3 years ago, I might still believe in God.
It's never too late, AT-Dubs. Let me tell you my story. I grew up, more or less in a Baptist evangelical church where i was only taught one aspect of the bible: repent, turn or burn, etc and that I was a lowly sinner (If you've read my response to soldout, you know how this affected me, so I'm going to fast forward some instead of typing through it again). Well, due to some personal situations (Which I am not comfortable discussing on hp), my mother was not able to send me to church as much as she wanted to. She mad as many arrangements as she possibly could to get me to church, but from the ages of about 8(ish)-14, I was not a regular churchgoer though I still was taught the bible by my mother (who ironically mirrored the teaching of the church). When I moved to Florida with my mother, I was able to get back into church (Missionary Baptist this time). The message was still the same, but something about it sounded off (for lack of a better word) to me. I went for a while and was slowing falling back into the routine until once again my mother was unable to get me to church so I didn't go very often between the ages of 16 until my early 20's. During that time, my mother changed churches and started going to a church that claimed they were non denominational, but claimed that their church was the only church that was going to heaven and every other denomination was false even though they taught from the same Bible. This church then pulled scripture and twisted it to suit their agenda.. I was officially done at that point. I stopped going to church for another several years and just started reading the bible for myself along with a dictionary. When I got to a word, I looked it up in a dictionary.. This is when I realized that the churches I went to was applying only one meaning of a scripture and one definition of a word as a blanket to encompass all situations regardless of the context and situation. This unlocked a whole new world of possibility for me as I realized that I couldn't see the big picture of God and Christianity because I was using a very small frame and went along with whatever I was told. I guess I lucked out that I was not steadily going to church enough for the turn or burn doctrine to fully take hold of me. Do I believe in repentance, absolutely. Repentance basically means to show remorse for wrongdoing. It's as simple as that. If you do something wrong, get up, dust yourself off, apologize for it, and try everything you can not to repeat the same behavior.
re·pent1 [ri-pent] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc.
A lot of Christians Make repentance and everything that goes along with it seem so much deeper than it really is. Some of them act like you have to fall out prostrate, whimper, simper, and huddle like a quivering mass Calling out to God and begging and pleading for forgiveness. The bible says that God takes our sins and tosses them into a sea of forgetfulness so once you apologize, that's it.. you're forgiven as long as you're sincere and your heart (so to speak for the literalists that will point out that the heart is in the chest) is in the right place. .
I know I certainly have not, nor anything else in Greek or Hebrew, nor would expect anyone else to have read documents in their original written language. That isn't a problem at all considering we can simply translate one language to another.
There may be interpretation issues, such as the word "day" meaning something that isn't a 24 hour cycle.
If that were case, "day" would have to mean 2 billion years if the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
The problem is that the definition of one word in one language is something totally different in another language.
Hence the concept of messages getting lost in translation
Excuse me? What? Surely, you can't be serious.
A nova revelation.... this Discussion has reached 100 pages ! "Narrow" has reached 50 pages. Do other subjects reach such milestones? LOL
The same thing it means in every language. Definitions of words don't change simply because the language changes. There are no concepts that can't be explained or translated in any language.
Actually, there is no definition for the word nova in the spanish dictionary.
Nova translates to "(it) doesn't go" in Spanish, hence the reason why Chevrolet couldn't market that car in Spain.
Thanks for that, But isn't that different in Spanish than the definition of nova in English?
no·va [noh-vuh] Show IPA
noun, plural no·vas, no·vae [noh-vee] Show IPA . Astronomy .
a star that suddenly becomes thousands of times brighter and then gradually fades to its original intensity.
This makes my point that the meaning of a word gets lost in translation, would it not?
Obviously, the word "nova", meaning an exploding star, would have a Spanish equivalent. If not, the Spanish may simply use the word "Nova", knowing that it means an exploding star, especially if the subject matter were that of astronomy. Or, they might use the phrase, "Estrella en explosión".
Again, the definitions of words don't change with languages even if a word has more than one definition.
Which brings me to another point.. The fact that a word has different definitions means that the words and phrases can get lost in translation depending on the context and definition.
Only as easy as they can get confused within the same language, which is not a problem at all due to the fact the confusion can be cleared up simply and easily. If one definition makes no sense at all while another does, which definition would you choose?
For example, we can take a simple word such as 'ass', which has various definitions.
If we were talking about four-legged hoofed animals, which definition would you think was correct?
If we were talking about lower body parts, which definition would you think was correct?
If we were talking about slow-witted people, which definition would you think was correct?
And clearly, there would be an equivalent word or phrase in other languages depicting these definitions, clearly and concisely.
Can you tell that to Beth, I was trying to get that message across.
I think I may have tried previously.
Regarding your other post about you might have still believed in God from 3 years ago, it's never too late. . To be perfectly honest I have bordered on agnostic for a while now, but I just cannot otherwise find answers to the beauty of the universe, the purpose of life and why it fights to survive in its environment via evolutionary processes, or the origins of human consciousness and our sense of morality. So even if I come to the position that the bible may not be the verbatim dictations of God himself, but is just another religious book representing the beliefs of a certain people, I cannot deny the existence of God.
I believe in exclusive salvation, just not the same way most Christians believe in it. I believe that salvation is exclusive to what God says and what God says alone. We cannot know what God will say when we get to him.
I can understand what you are saying here.
Thank you for taking time to respond.
But I have one question...
Do you think a hindu can go to heaven if he/she is doing good works?
If yes, then I don't see any reason why we should share the good news, and telling them to repent if according to you there are some other way.
If as many Christians suggest that the person who has never heard 'the gospel' will be judged upon their hearts/actions in life, then it is better never to tell them this 'gospel'.
It is not according to me.. It is biblical that God has the final say so and judges according to the works of man as well as what's in a man's heart. Christ paid the price and paved the way for us, but ultimately, we still face God for judgment. I cannot tell them they are not getting in because I do not and cannot know the mind of God and neither do you. We can tell them what is written in the bible as far as what has been said and even what it says today, but we CANNOT tell anyone what God WILL say when we meet him face to face. This does not and cannot disqualify us from sharing the good news of Christ's sacrifice for our sins, but we cannot just teach certain parts of the bible to the exclusion of others. I teach others and share the good news, but I also teach and share them the history of the OT and God's word s and commandments to His people as well as the future of what will happen when we get to his throne. GOD will render final judgment... Period.
boyatdelhi, your post is consistent with your Profile. Obviously you are a person who has a deep faith in christianity. Fair enough.
Any argument with you will never change your mind, so why would some one like myself even try to?
I have my understandings and have not found anything yet to change them.. Maybe -- one day.
The Lord of Rings trilogy are the only books to prove the existence of Orks. Without the trilogy, it is almost impossible to prove the existence of Orks.
See the silliness in both statements?
Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to let the cat out of the bag.
unicorns are, though. They're in the bible.
Yea, I read that. Though I figured they meant a single-horned rhinoceros (and then I read info on how they explained it, and sure enough, single-horned rhinoceros). JM, what is that translated to directly from the Hebrew, I'm curious.
But what really exists without a shadow of a doubt is talking donkeys. Didn't you guys see Shrek? Apparently they sound like Eddie Murphy. Oh goodness, and the bible mentions them, too, I forgot. See! Undeniable evidence.
I could be wrong, but I don't believe that either the white or black rhinos have a single horn. They both have a long one, yes, but there is a secondary bump/horn as well. I could be wrong, and it's been a long time since I was in Africa.
I'll have to look the Hebrew up. It's not coming to mind.
I don't understand the donkey thing. Their vocal chords are incompatible.
It is orc and they are indeed real, because elves are also mentioned by Tolkien. Elves are mentioned by Rowling, The Norse people and the Anglosaxons. How can these many authors and peoples be wrong?
Actually, orks (or orcs) are not only written about in the LOTR trilogy.. There are other books (with pictures) that talk about orcs.
Time to pull out good ol' Epicurus:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing.
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
If you put a child in a room with padded walls and no objects, so that they could not get hurt, did not let them outside so nothing bad could ever happen to them, gave them an abundance of everything, but never a challenge.... you would call that a loving parent.
We live in a fallen world. Man has separated himself from God. *You personally have either rejected or deny Him... then you question Him. You should find out personally who God actually is instead of saying He falls short of the standards you, presumably an American boy around 20, would set for Him.
I'm sure the nearly one billion people starving to death worldwide (through no fault of their own, mind you) are comforted by those words.
That's a childish response to what I said... and if they are starving, it is because those of us who can help, teach, or fund, do not. God has given us the means to help. What do you do personally while you sit back and blame a God you say you do not even believe in?
And I'm sure they're also comforted by the fact that they're just guinea pigs for God to test the faith of others.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient he made us specifically to be exactly as we are-- killing and torturing each other.
If He had no idea what we would do, he is not omniscient--which begs the question as to whether he is a god?
And even so if he allows good people to suffer just to make some kind of point, then he is not benevolent.
This is the tension. We are told God id a kind of being that is inconsistent with the world we live in.
He has given us a free will. A loving God would not create a world of robots, but a world of ppl who had the choice to do right and wrong... to choose Him or deny Him. Would you have it any other way?
He made us the kind of creatures that torture each other when given free will. So it is kind of like giving your baby a straight razor.
All I am saying is that there is tension between how God is described and the world we find ourselves in. Drawing attention to that--however you resolve it in your own mind--is a valid thing to do.
Do you kill other humans? Are you the kind of "creature" who would kill another human with a straight razor? I doubt that you are.
The bible explains that when sin entered the world, death entered the world.
We could get into the subject of satan, sin, death, eternal life etc... but it is all in Genesis, a very interesting book.
Beth, if God is all-knowing, then He already knows the outcome of everything. Biblical prophecy, especially Revelations, indicates that everything is going according to God's plan.
The problem arises when an all-knowing God realizes before the creation of a specific human (let's use Hitler for example), that the human will go on to lead a horrible life and end up in the pits of Hell - and then that God goes ahead and creates that human anyway. If God knows what choices you will make - before you make them - is it REALLY free will? I don't think so.
And speaking of Genesis - I've always been confused by the conflict there. God said that if Adam and Eve ate the fruit - in that day - they would die. The Serpent said that if Adam and Eve were to eat of the fruit - they would not die - but instead their eyes would be open. Yet, after they snacked - God came back and said their eyes were now open and they were "like one of 'Us'", which, in itself is strange, because it indicates that there were others "like God."
At any rate - don't you find it strange that the Serpent was the one that actually told the truth? And, if God lied then - don't you think that sets a precedent for Him being untrustworthy?
I think all that "free will" stuff is just as much hocus pocus is just something that believers use to comfort themselves when their stories don't make a lick of sense.
Actually, according to the bible, the serpent did lie. Adam and Eve did not immediately drop dead, but by their actions they were banished from the Garden of Eden (where they would have lived forever) and sent to the world where they did eventually die
The part that was deliberately ignored, in the argument presented, was how God removed the Tree of Life. Within the story it is clear that the Tree of Life could counteract the effects of a death, juxtaposed to a life of forever, which indicates "within context" of the actual story - that the life being discussed is one that had a potential of more than a corporeal or carnal quality.
The claim that God lied, makes no sense when considering the story in context considering the removal of the Tree of Life.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the account so that some can claim God lied and satan told the truth.
You will never see a non-believer admit something along the lines of this: I dont believe in God, I dont believe the Bible, somethings in the Bible seem far fetched, some things attributed to God in the Bible seem really bad, but some things are good really, but IF there is a God, I am grateful for my life in this reality if He created it.
You wont ever hear that. Something they claim does not exists is always bad, and oddly the satan they also dont believe in is often the good guy or the one telling the truth or the victim.
What explains that?
That's simply one interpretation, but it still doesn't explain why God said they were now one of us because using your interpretation they are now nothing like a God(s) who live forever.
They were created to live without death... because they sinned they now would die. Their physical bodies would cease to be alive. This is what is meant by "you will surely die."
but then you going to tell us that that is not a punishment because some of us (you) will go to heaven. So what the problems with death then?
We will all live forever. When sin entered the world, death entered the world... cancer, disease, murder... evil. Im pretty sure we would have preferred the original plan.
Can you imagine the population problem if we all lived forever?
I read this book about 7 years ago... it was really interesting. It might give you a different perspective on that subject.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt … p;dur=4140
How can a book written about Heaven be of any value considering so very little has been written in scriptures about it. While I didn't read the book, I read several reviews, many of them from Christians who were quite disappointed, and they all pretty much said the same thing, that Randy's imagination is quite vivid and active.
You're right... we need to hold scripture in higher esteem.
Luckily you read a few Christians opinions on it, that way we can have an in depth discussion about the book. I know how much you value Christians opinions so we're probably already on the same page, so to speak.
But, we know that is an obvious fairy tale, and a very bad one at that. It only shows a god of immense evil who would bring to the world cancer, disease and murder simply because a woman ate an apple.
It is both childish and ridiculous in the extreme.
But if choosing to worship him does not make you one a better person then is it really good?
Worshiping Him doesn't necessarily make you good, no. One would worship Him because *He is good. My best is, it couldn't hurt.
That's Pascal's Wager, which suggests that it's better to worship God and then find out there is no God than to not worship God and find out there is a God.
This is only valid if there are only two options available: that God exists or God does not exist. However, we live in a world that has thousands of religious options from monotheistic, polytheistic, and pantheistic faiths. There is no system in place to tell which, if any, are correct. Every religion has an equal amount of evidence supporting its claims.
For a Christian, this is not a wager, it's a reaction.
a reaction to what? Fear of the consequences or hope for reward?
What happens to your mind and heart when you see someone you adore? What if they were somehow glorified, someone you admire? Like a political figure, an actor or a personal hero? Have you seen Beatle fan footage? That was their reaction. When you watch it now, you kinda think they were crazy, but they worshiped those mere men. To those of us who know and love God, who are grateful to Him for what we've been given, our salvation and our very existence, it goes so far beyond what those teenagers experienced.
and how do you see god? the bible says no man can see him
I don't have to see Him to worship Him. All I have to do is think about Him. I set my mind on Him and push out the thoughts of all the earthly crap that weighs us down and I just think about His goodness, and His kindness, and all the thousands of times Ive received His love or watched other be the recipient of His mercy. It's not hard... it takes very little effort. It's like saying that falling in love takes effort... it's a matter of the heart.
but that's not what you just said.
"What happens to your mind and heart when you see someone you adore? What if they were somehow glorified, someone you admire? Like a political figure, an actor or a personal hero? Have you seen Beatle fan footage? That was their reaction. When you watch it now, you kinda think they were crazy, but they worshiped those mere men. To those of us who know and love God, who are grateful to Him for what we've been given, our salvation and our very existence, it goes so far beyond what those teenagers experienced."
The beetle fans you mentioned KNEW that the beetles existed. They could see them. They could interact with them, listen to their music, see their photographs and go to their concerts.
You asked me what my worship was in reaction to.
I tried to offer a comparison to help you understand.
Im sorry if you thought I was saying I had seen God with my eyes.
I have not.
I tried to respond with an analogy of my own, but let me try again.
I know my wife exists. I can see her. I can touch her. I can call her on the phone, and I hear her voice when she talks to me.
When I see a drawing of someone from history or something that one of my friends has drawn, it may be a real person, but it might not be. When i read a book, I don't automatically assume that all of the characters are real, just because someone wrote about them.
I know the things that are real that I can look at, touch and experience. Everything else might be real, or it might not be. Does that make sense? I don't automatically assume that it does or doesn't until I have more information - and my beliefs about certain things can change - depending on the information.
Yes, but you are now addressing the "does God exist" argument. That wasn't what I was addressing. You know, from all our talks, that I have no doubt in God, so worship is a natural reaction from me. He is as real to me as your wife is to you. If you want me to switch gears and address "does God exist" again, I will do so.
we don't need to go down that road again here. I wasn't meaning to switch gears. I'm sorry.
Funny how you can't see that is a blatant contradiction. You've never seen your god, or so you admit, yet folks can "see" their wives because they are real people. To make the same comparison is ridiculous.
Some hate the Truth and love and embrace evil. Their conscience is seared. Because of this, God has given them over to that.
They rationalize that their subjective opinions about, suffering, innocence and benevolence are valid but it's NOT childlike and naive but disingenuous and calculating.
God is not being blamed for anything. The logical conclusion for the suffering is he doesn't exist as described in the bible if he exists at all. This not an attack on God, it's an attack on the concept of God.
I read his response. I would assume he could speak for himself.
The Bible describes God as a loving God, who also will punish those who will go against His teachings.
This world is not our permanent place, we are here for just a moment and then tomorrow we are gone....
Whatever God does is for the good of those who trust in Him.
He is a safe place to run to for those who trust in Him,
but a stumbling block for those who refuse to believe in Him.
Sold out to good sense, if you were to ask me..... Would you put your trust in someone who threatened to destroy you if you did not conform?
Man! you don't understand a thing here!
God loves me, He never threatens me....
Well then, you can sleep well at night, knowing nothing can threaten your lovely, safe existence.
What else do you do with your life that you find joyful and fulfilling, Soldout?
I guess he doesn't have a problem with that whole burn in hell unless you do as I say thingy.
Ha Ha Nice question!
I am always busy trying to be of help to people. I have lots of friends.
I play guitar, teach guitar as well...
I am still a student... Life has so much to offer..
I am enjoying everything that I am doing right now...etc etc
Well if we don't want to see any more sufferings in this world, follow God!, God of love!
And everything will be ok.
And Beth, it's not exactly an adult conversation when your respond to a young man's skepticism with religiosity.
How can you blame God for the starvation of people? They or their forefathers may have done something wrong, that is why they are punished and in suffering!
So your God must not be forgiving, loving God?
at least he's not saying it's a mystery.
Clearly starving children deserve what they get - you know, because they're evil - or their parents were evil. Or their grandparents were evil. It's a good bet that SOMEONE at SOME point was evil - and that's why the babies are starving now, of course.
That seems evil to me. Perhaps the God reflects the person?
Love God, Love your neighbor..
and this world will be a better place...
God want us all to love one another, share with each other. It is humans who are responsible for these problems...
Sure, Soldout, that's what I say, totally agree with you.
But if I fall in love with my neighbour, and go to bed with him, you will likely declare me so sinful that I cannot come into Heaven with you.
So what I can see from here is that you are only thinking about sex!
Do you agree?
Sorry, Soldout, I rarely use this, but what you have just said is BS ! You will surely gain from my other posts and hubs that what you suggest is not true.
However, I do claim the right to jump into bed and do just that, if the other person and I feel totally comfortable with it. (And, of course, provided it is in no way hurting another person in the process.)
There is no "god" to worry about, for me. It is the self-righteous humans like yourself who will be making the judgment, that is why we will have to keep the curtains tightly closed and do everything in secret. It is the condemnatory judgment of fellow humans that causes most suffering. The rejection, the bullying, the torture of body and mind exacted in punishment, by humans upon humans, that brings about war and famine and death of the "soul."
You continue with a narrow-minded attitude to life if you wish, that is your free choice. I have gained the freedom to see a wider picture. Thank you.
Yes you are free to do anything you like..
It's just that you defined love for lust...
Alright..enjoy your freedom
I did not. That was your biased and judgmental interpretation.
The "problem," if in fact there is one, is of your own making. The "God" you have designed for yourself is tiny, pathetic, constricted to what you want to believe in. I could never worship such a nonsense, so there is precious little point in you and myself continuing such a conversation. We will be going around and round with you and me at opposite sides of the circle, with an imaginary mountain in the middle. You can only see one side, because that is the side you are stuck on seeing. I have seen what you see, but I have also expanded my vision to encompass the infinite possibilities in this world.
Was it not you who said "Anything is possible with God?" Some one did, here or in another hub/discussion.
Yet you decide "He" does not like homosexuals, because of what you think they "do." You think that "God" is going to filter out those he doesn't like, refuse their entry into "Heaven," and only admit the pure and grovelling.
Utter nonsense because that "God" is only inside your brain. You make your bed, you lie in it.
In the Bible there is a verse which says, homosexuals cannot enter the kingdom of God!
Unless they turn to God and ask God for forgiveness. No hidden meaning here. very clear!
Soldout, I suspect I have a much closer knowledge and experience of the "the Kingdom of God" than you will have for quite some time yet.
What you have just said about "homosexuals" is totally ignorant and without foundation except your fallacious beliefs.
Do not insult ME like that. You have no idea!
Are you a homosexual?
I didn't know that....
I apologize Jonny!
I respect you and all the homosexuals!
Here I am quoting a Bible verse, just because this is a place to discuss. . .And we happened to talk about this topic earlier.
Anyways, I am not bringing up this topic again.
or Hey jonnycomelately,
should i call you a pervert??
Should you is not the question. Would you is the question?
This is uncalled for! What kind of absurd question is this?
No, that would be an obsessed parent, not a loving parent.
No, we don't. The world has not fallen.
Or, they have the intelligence to understand gods are myths.
Zelkiiro is approaching the subject with considerable skepticism. That is very healthy for a 20 year old. Why should he accept everything that is thrown at him by committed christian people without question?
I didn't say it was odd for him to question, nor did I say he should accept everything without question.
What I did say was that it makes no sense to say someone does not exist and then to say they lack goodness. Either He is real or He is not.... if you come to the understanding that He is real, *then you could have a conversation about whether or not He is good.
Once again, you don't appear to understand we get that. We can talk about gods just like we can talk about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, which we also don't believe are real.
I don't think you had a full grasp of my post there, but that's ok. You can take a mulligan if you wish.
We can look at the description of God we have in the bible and determine or judge his character.
Yes, He is willing and that is why He gave us His son so that sin can be forgiven and that disables evil. The question is are we willing to prevent evil? Evil comes from Satan and people enable him.
So the point I'm trying to make is that God can prevent evil but are people, whom God has given free will, willing to prevent evil? Why put the onus all on God when people give Satan power? Epicurus completely omits the power of Satan and who it is people that are responsible for evil in the world.
So what can God do? As mentioned, He can defeat sin by saving us or He can just turn us into robots that can't think for themselves so they can't be tempted to do evil. Who wants that? You can't love a robot. Why would God want robots?
And never forget that God suffers the most.
Based on conversations that I have had with some atheists, it doesn't appear to be as simple as them saying "God does not exist because there is so much suffering in this world). It Isn't that black and white. (NOTE- The following response is based off discussions that I have personally had with atheists).
Here is the thing, We Christians speak of God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent (I could go on, but we all get the point). Some Christians believe that God interacts physically with this world and has his hands on everything going on in the world. Now it isn't hard to see the suffering that is going on in the world, from starvation in Africa (among other places), to disease, etc. Atheists (based on conversations) have a hard time believing that an omni- everything God that interacts with this world exists that would allow such suffering to happen. With this in mind, there are three potential situations to consider that all have their own implications.
1) Either God does not exist (which, considering lack of evidence is their likely situation
2) God exists, but does not interact with the physical world (watches)
3) God exists and does interact with the physical world.
Now here the implications:
If 1 is true, then we Christians have been believing an honest life based on a lie.
If 2 is correct, then this takes away from God's omnipotence and/or benevolence (depending if it is a matter of him not being able to interact with the physical world or being unwilling to)
If three is correct and he does interact with the physical world but doesn't in these cases, then he is not benevolent.
Ultimately (again based on conversations I have had with atheists, and Zelkiiro quoted Epucurius on this one) , atheists find it difficult to believe that a God exists that would allow these things to occur. Now if it were proven sufficiently (for them) that God does exist, it would be even harder to accept and follow Him because he allows this suffering although he is supposed to be omni-everything.
Our physical existence is only temporary!
IF when this physically experience ends. according to religion, a part of us continues to exist.
It seems logical to me, thais part of us must have existed before we took on this physical existence.
I ask myself, why would we choose to enter into an existence where other people’s choices limit or expand upon our pleasures and discomforts.
I don’t think we would if we didn’t know that it was only temporary.
Is having a bad experience better than having no experience at all. Some people will say yes while others will say no.
How can we know what we would want to do if everything about us was different and we were in a different enviroment. We just don't know what we don't know, Ya know?
Do ya believe that people continue to exist after death?
People ?? That person ? A portion of the entirety ?
I believe that there is a part of this person that I think I am that does continue on for ever.
Though I think that I am a complete whatever it is that I think that I am, I somehow believe that I am but a small piece of whatever it is "I Am" represents.
And my purpose in this existance is to be me.
All each of us needs to do is try to leave the world we live in just a little bit better than when we came into it. Simple. Nothing complicated about it.
Then leave humbly, saying, "I did what I could. It's up to you folks now."
Hanging on to this idea of "me" existing after my death is so, so pointless. It detracts from my efforts in this moment, doing what I can for those immediately around. It takes my mental energy. The idea is used by others to create fear and foreboding in my mind, saying there is someone "up there" waiting to judge me. What absolute nonsense!
I reject such notions, totally.
You continue to amaze me. Sorry to have judged you, but I have and I like what I read.
You may believe that... your choice. I make my choice. Thank you.
Always these weak threats. That is what Christianity has become, an ideology that increasingly attempts to intimidate or shame people into itself.
Much like the Mafia, except their threats are real.
Crap, I grew up right in the middle of the Mafia. I best friends dad was a hit man. I no longer have any connections with the mafia so, no.
Are you suggesting that I should be afraid of God because of the threats you make?
no no. God is not someone to be afraid of, He is to be adored.
If you don't want to adore him, fine... freedom to choose,
why would you adore something that you can't prove to actually exist? Do you adore every god that has been asserted - or just the one that you happen to like?
Aside from that - god does want fear:
22:12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
1:21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own.
14:31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the Lord displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.
20:18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."
20:20 Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning."
5:29 Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!
6:1,2 These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, so that you, your children and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life.
6:13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.
6:24 The Lord commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the Lord our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.
9:19 I feared the anger and wrath of the Lord, for he was angry enough with you to destroy you. But again the Lord listened to me.
10:12-13 And now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the Lord's commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?
10:20 Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.
31:12 Assemble the people--men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns--so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law.
31:13 Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn to fear the Lord your God as long as you live in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess."
do you prefer the new testament?
1:50 His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.
8:24-25 He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him."
12:4-5 "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
5:11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.
1:17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
2:17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
and those verses are not even a FRACTION of all of the verses that commend or command a fear of god in order to please him.
Quick question, J. I looked up the word fear and got two definitions of the word fear
fear [feer] Show IPA
a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
reverential awe, especially toward God: the fear of God.
Given that there are two different definitions of the word, would it be fair to explore the possibility that with some of those verses the second definition of the word would apply and not the first? I'm asking because given the way the verses appear to have been written it would seem that the second definition would fit depending on the context of the whole chapter.
absolutely. I think that some uses fit the first (which is the point that I was making) and some fit the second. I think it's clear, however, throughout all of scripture that the god of the bible is okay with fear - in the first sense - and he wants it in some respects. that completely goes against the point that the original person I was talking to was making.
I have the reverential fear of GOD. I love God.
why would you adore something that you can't prove to actually exist?
Well, I have chosen to believe in God, and I adore Him.
You have chosen to follow your own way, so you don't see any reason why I should adore God.
you don't believe in God. It's funny how you know so much about Him.
who told you i made up an imaginary friend?
For me He is real, I am blessed because of Him..
don't imagine wild things...
here we are not talking only about Christians , but whoever believes God exist.That includes the muslims, hindus, ...as well.
Atheist are considered by them as someone who has little knowledge, but not willing to accept their weakness, so they continue to boast about it till they die. I am sure you don't want to be one of them.
Speaking of little knowledge, you clearly know nothing of Hindus.
I live in India,.. I completed my masters in studying world religions and civilizations from Indian university. I have Hindu friends who are experts in Hinduism.
are you saying that atheists are just dumber than believers are, or are you saying that atheists "know the truth" and just insist on denying it because of arrogance?
With all due respect, atheists are NOT the ones saying that with billions of galaxies, billions of stars, billions of planets, etc in this entire universe that an all-powerful, all-knowing being created THIS earth JUST for them and they know it to absolutely be true - and everyone else got it wrong. That is the HEIGHT of arrogance, in my book.
You may want to tread carefully assuming that atheists don't know anything and they're not well-versed in religion. You don't know any of us personally, and making these wide, sweeping assumptions is going to end badly for you since you don't know who you're talking to or what their experiences have been that led them to atheism to begin with.
Well i don't mean to say you are dumb. I am just giving you the idea of what some religious people are talking about atheist...
i have friends who are atheist, we learn to accept each others ideas.
I know quite well what some religious people think and say about atheists. I asked, because this is the second time that you've a statement that says in so many words that atheists are atheists because they lack knowledge or information to know better. I could possibly excuse one as coincidence or a mis-speak. Two is a bit more of a pattern - only the second time you distanced yourself by saying "they say". I want to know what YOU actually say.
You know what, here in this forum, you see the same question been asked again and again, that is the reason we are giving the same answer again. We are here free to disagree with each other. Some people here called religious people dumb, and vice versa. it's not a new thing.
But, let me tell you, I, am NOT ATHEIST HATER. There are many of them whom I am close with.
So Yahweh = Krishna = Allah = Ahura Mazda = Odin, etc.
If you are doing the right thing, He will not judge you guilty. So why are you so afraid?
maybe you want to do something bad, that is the reason you don't like the idea of someone up, looking at you?
B e good man, He will reward you...
But, we are not morally bankrupt, hence we do not go about doing good things in order to get rewards.
where on earth did you get the notion that we're afraid? We have nothing to be afraid of.
Ooooh! Yeah, let's think up something real bad, Man!
Soldout, you do talk so much nonsense..... but I love the entertainment.
You must forgive me folks for being a bit late in replying to all these novel christian posts of Soldout77. Being on the opposite side of the world, all your discussions get to me next morning when all you people are probably in bed. There was a huge backlog of posts when I checked in first thing this morning (Monday). Wishing you all a good, prosperous and happy week.
Oh yeah, many of us here do that.. Not a new thing man
it's funny how you said,
"Yeah, let's think up something real bad, Man!"
Let us all try to come up with something good, ..
I think I have been too harsh, well, I’ll try to change that, so that this discussion is constructive not destructive..
How do you suggest God eradicates all suffering from the world? As for the rest of your comment based on Epicurus, I'll repost the comment I made to Zelkiiro:
Yes, He is willing and that is why He gave us His son so that sin can be forgiven and that disables evil. The question is are we willing to prevent evil? Evil comes from Satan and people enable him.
So the point I'm trying to make is that God can prevent evil but are people, whom God has given free will, willing to prevent evil? Why put the onus all on God when people give Satan power? Epicurus completely omits the power of Satan and who it is people that are responsible for evil in the world.
So what can God do? As mentioned, He can defeat sin by saving us or He can just turn us into robots that can't think for themselves so they can't be tempted to do evil. Who wants that? You can't love a robot. Why would God want robots?
And never forget that God suffers the most.
Well, Claire, the first thing we have to know, figure out, and agree on is the question of whether God interacts with our physical world, first and foremost.
If the answer is no, then your question basically does not have an answer other than to say he can't (or doesn't choose to) eradicate the suffering in the world.
But if the answer is yes he does interact with the world, then by virtue of our Christian belief in that he is all knowing, all powerful, etc it could be reasoned that God would know how to eradicate all of the suffering in the world and do it in a manner that proves his existence to all. Now this is only in reference to the suffering (disease, starvation, etc) in the world.
If you read my post again, my comments weren't based on Epicurius. I mentioned that Zelkiiro mentioned Epicurius as part of my comments (which were actually based on conversations that I have had with atheists). There is a difference. I was answering your question based on what I have learned from atheists, not my own personal beliefs.
I agree that God gave his son so that sin can be forgiven, but God giving up his son does not disable nor prevent evil. It counters evil by giving those of us who try to live good lives but mess up (since we are human) at times a chance to go back and correct said mess ups. But, on the other hand, there will still be those that will do wrong regardless, and so evil is not disabled
To answer your first question, yes, there are people are willing to do what they can to prevent doing things that are considered evil. Things that are immoral may not necessarily be considered evil. The purpose of God sending his son is to save those who aren't evil by nature, but that make mistakes and sometimes bad decisions. Though people are willing to prevent evil, they are only to avoid and prevent evil that they themselves do. We cannot control the actions of others (though there are some that seek to do so). So the answer is really yes and no. We can prevent ourselves from doing evil things, but we cannot prevent all evil because we cannot control others.
To answer your second question, The onus is on God, but not simply because of people giving power to Satan. The fact of the matter is in remembering who Satan was before he was cast out of heaven. Satan had power long before people started giving him power. Satan is more powerful as a being that human beings are and as such we cannot defeat him by ourselves and we believe God to be more powerful than Satan, so why would we not call on God to help us deal with something that is more powerful than we are?
You are talking about two different things. Sin and evil. He set a contingency plan to save us from our own sins should we choose to accept it, but what about the evils and sins of others that would harm us? If someone attacks you, but I save you from them, do you become a robot? Turning us into robots is not a viable option that would stop us from doing evil. What stops us from doing evil things is the moral and ethical code that is supposed to be within us that tells us an action is wrong and our critical thinking skills to assess whether we want to follow that moral code or not.
You see, Claire, there is more here in question than the existence of God. Of course, we have the atheists that say there is not enough evidence to support the existence of God, the agnostics that say they don't know and may never know and the Christians that say there is God. The real question and issue here is whether or not God interacts with this physical world or not. We have some churches that teach that he does interact with this world exactly the same way he did in the OT, but because of our sinful nature he doesn't want to help us because we have to prove ourselves to him. On the other hand, we have other churches that teach that he does not interact in the physical world because Satan rules the earth. As a result of this contradictory teaching, we have people that will thank and praise God when something good happens (most of which are very mundane and do not require divine intervention), but excuse him when bad things happen by saying it's our fault or that Satan is in control here (which are the times when divine intervention is needed).
If there is going to be any real and effective change in this world and an end to the suffering, starvation, etc in the world, as the human race, those that seek to do good and live a good life for all will have to come together and work in unity to get this done (regardless of beliefs, or lack thereof). In Christianity, what we have to do is come together and decide what we are going to believe. If we decide that God does interact with the world like in the OT, then we need to come together on one accord and call on him to go ahead and move off the throne to stop the suffering and counter the evil that comes against his people. If, on the other hand, we realize that God does not interact with the world the same way as he did in the OT, then we need to come together, pull up and tighten our boots and do what we can do for ourselves and each other.
But the ultimate key word in the whole situation is unity.
i'm impressed. Seriously. You taught me something today.
you continually shape my new experiences with Christians, along with Mo, Melissa and others. You show me what it's truly like to be a good person, regardless of what you do/don't believe. You give me hope, and you teach me constantly to not give up. thank you. From the bottom of my heart.
I agree, but he is no Mo or Melissa. Don't go making his head swell.
You're very right about that.
I take back all of the nice things that I just said.
No, I'm not Mo or Melissa.. Those two are super awesome.. I'm just trying to fit in and leave at least a small mark
Aw, Rad, Deepes, you two are making me blush. I don't think Melissa blushes, though. She knows how really awesome she is.
J, you need new experiences with Christians. A lot of the old ones have been crap. Crap, I say!
Deepes, no name calling!
Melissa owns it!!
I agree.. Luckily you have us
harrumph.. fine!! (mumbles) Sorry Rad
the question remains:
Did Judas exist?
If he did exist, why did he get such a bad rep? Didn't he do exactly what he was supposed to do - or else none of the rest of Christianity could exist? Didn't Jesus himself tell him to?
Have you ever heard of the gospel of Judas, incidentally? It's one of the gnostics, and it's intriguing.
Yeah i have heard of it, JM. Judas got a bad rep (I agree with this) because despite Jesus telling him to do it, he still betrayed him in the eyes of the people. It ate him up so bad that he killed himself for it. At least that's how the (paraphrased) story goes
the story is one of the most intriguing to me. Did he really betray him, or did he serve his purpose? Why would jesus select Judas at all, knowing how things would go down - and had Judas NOT betrayed him, would any of the other events have played out the way that they were supposed to?
While we're on the subject, HOW exactly did Judas kill himself exactly? Did he fall headlong and spill his intestines or hang himself?
When you examine everything, Judas served his purpose as according to what Jesus commanded him to. However, for those who weren't around it appeared to be a betrayal. Ultimately, he felt the same way (even though he was told to), which is why he killed himself
According to Acts, he fell headlong and his intestines spilled. According to Matthew, he hanged himself. Yes this is two stories. It is very possible (and I have heard this in a couple of churches) that he tried to hang himself but whatever he tried to hang himself on broke which caused him to fall and spill his guts... but to tell you the truth, I have no idea.. Yes, I admit it. I wasn't there.
Don't listen to him.. By all means, make my head swell, please...oh wait.. We're not talking about the same head, are we?
*audibly smacks my head against the coffee table*
I'm blaming you for the concussion.
I was waiting to see how long it would take us to go there...LOL
Hey, at least I went at least a week without any innuendos.. that has to count for something
I was actually starting to wonder if something was wrong with you.
I know that feeling. I'm already dreading the week and a half that I'll be incommunicado. Thankfully, some of it will be vacation, and spent with dear friends, so I have that to look forward to. Sadly, the rest of it will be driving...and driving...and driving...with my dog in the car along with me. She is, thanks be to God, a wonderful travel dog, but, you know...I fear it's going to be a long trip...lol
Lol, I understand. But in my case, little sleep+ long days+ sleep apnea= Exhausted Deepes Mind
Oh, I feel ya! Hubby and I both have terrible insomnia. He also has sleep apnea. So sad, too, because I absolutely LOVE sleep!
My heart goes out to you, my friend.
My insomnia is often caused by a 4 year old that keeps his own hours at times as well as has special needs (asthma and eczema) that keep us up at times because he is either wheezing or scratching uncontrollably
And mine to you.. Does he use a machine?
He does. Which serves him wonderfully - when he's actually able to sleep. Poor guy will spend sometimes three days in a row awake, and then crash for an entire day. It's rough on him. But he gets through, and without that machine, I know his sleep is rough. Before he got it, I used to sleep with my hand on his chest and I'd wake up out of a dead sleep if he stopped breathing.
I know the feeling. My wife does the same if she doesn't hear me snoring or feel me breathing. But she mostly will wake me up to make sure I put on my mask
Good gravy! That's how it goes in our house too! He hates to put it on before he falls asleep, so I'll wake him up to put it on...then do it again. Once he's plugged in, I can sleep easier.
It's a pain in the neck being strapped to that thing. What type of mask does he have?
He has the full-face one that covers his nose and mouth. He tried just the nose one for a while, but it dried him up something terrible and he hated it. The machine itself is practically silent, though, which is nice.
I tried the nose one too.. it's awful and dried me up too. I also have the one that covers the nose and mouth. It's so much better to me than the nose, but it's still aggravating having it on my face
When he first got it, they gave him a mask that was actually too big...and it was uncomfortable for him. Maybe the one you have isn't a good fit? Now that he's wearing a size down, it's a lot easier for him to bear. And when he moves, it doesn't come loose around his face anymore like the other one used to.
No.. mine fits perfectly for me.. I just hate it...lol
Understood. My husband really wants me to be tested, but I'm so afraid I'll wind up having to wear one too. Grr.
Crap, sleep apnea should not be treated lightly. It causes stress on the stressed. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I've seen what it does first hand. I understand insomnia first hand and seem to have the better of it for a few years know. But the cure is a double edged sword. Wish I could help. See, I'm such a guy, always trying to fix stuff.
I'm always grateful when people offer suggestions. Sometimes, as far as the insomnia, I feel like we've tried absolutely everything. He and I both spent long years working second shifts or graveyards, and I often wonder if we've just messed our circadian rhythms that badly that we'll never sleep like normal people again.
Tell me about it.. When I had a sleep study done i stopped breathing like 62 times and the length of time ranged from 12 seconds to 38 seconds
Stop complaining, the drive to northern Florida is nothing. Crap, I've drove through Detroit on my way to Clearwater many times and one time I hit a snow storm and it took twelve hours just to get to Detroit.
In all sincerity, I'm not really complaining - nor am I actually dreading it. I'm a little nervous because we'll be taking a different route than usual, and that, in general, allows for some anxiety. But, I'll have great company - my girl and my dog. Hubby and the cat will be in the moving truck. And, Deepes is absolutely right - what's at the end will make it all worth it.
Yep.. Of course you know I was referring to the fact that I'm in Jax, right??
Well, of course! I mean, what else would have convinced me to move there, of all places!
Of course, of course. The fact that both of you live in Florida was what finally tipped the scales.
I am looking forward to the first known Hubpage reunion adventure! Especially if it means I get to drag you (er...show you) around Busch Gardens at some point. There are a lot of creatures there that I am on a first-name basis with that would love to eat...er...meet you, I'm sure.
I've got plans to be in Tampa in July. How fortuitous! And I don't even mind if the BG creatures eat me, so long as you don't laugh fiendishly as you feed me to them.
but laughing is the best part!
You definitely have to call when you're headed to Tampa. We can do Busch Gardens, or just hang out and have a beer. I want lots of hugs, laughter and conversation :-)
I have in-laws in Tampa area too so I get down there from time to time too
and you haven't come over for dinner yet? What's WRONG with you?
You just don't want your wife to see how in love with me you REALLY are, and you don't want to make mine jealous. That's it, isn't it?
To be fair, we haven't been down to that area in a while. It's been about two years in fact. I was point that out that I will let you know when I will be that way
You got me, J.. Wait.. I plead the 5th
Why would yours be jealous?? I know it's because you got so much the hots for me!
Ha ha ha ha hah ah ahshahahshhaha. You must truly be delusional. I've seen a picture of her wife and well you may be cute and all but...
Her wife is about a gorgeous as you can get. I was going to comment on how pretty she was, but you never know how such comments will be taken. But I can agree when someone else sticks their neck out
Yes she is. I'll agree with that. I got incredibly lucky. She's got all of the looks, but I've got the charm :-)
I read her all of these comments, and she just smiled and blushed - and then denied it. *rolls eyes* why is it that the most beautiful people I know are the ones that are insisting that they're not. She doesn't get it, I don't think.
I don't ever deny how good I have it. It took 33 years, but I made it to my happy place. I found my wife, and now i'm finding all of my lovely friends here to add to the mix. No matter what is going on, life is good.
Sometimes I think that when a person doesn't recognize their beauty, it makes them all that much more beautiful. It makes it completely obvious then that they aren't working to beguile anyone with their looks. Not to mention, I have known people who have become more and more attractive as time goes by, just because they're such amazing people.
I agree with you (only as it applies to my wife). She made me want to be better for her than I was at the time I met her. I am happy with my life too. I wouldn't trade her for the world.
Hey, I love the Great White North, but I can't talk hubby into moving there, and it's not sunny like Florida. But, hey, now you have three reasons to add to your list of why you should visit Florida!
Yep so I'm closer to doing what we've all talked about..
Don't worry, I'll send pictures
But she's coming to my city.. so nana nana boo boo..
just to try to be closer to me, one step at a time.
Lol.. Ok.. But I just think she likes me more...LOL
It's not that she is moving farther from me to be closer... Crap. I have other friends you know.
And we're all going to harass you repeatedly to visit us with your lovely family, you know that, right, Rad? I mean, c'mon, we're all sympathetic people...we don't want you suffering in that sunless wasteland when you can come and visit us.
Steer clear of those garages in which the mechanic is also the local Sheriff.
See the first "Vacation" movie with Chevy Chase.
Too bad your not going down the i79. It's a beautiful drive and you could stop to say hi to Melissa. The i75 is nice as well. I loved Cincinnati. WKRP. A GPS and some music and away you go. Last time we played a few seasons of Seinfeld for the kids and had fun listening.
Actually, that is the route we're taking - through W.V. and the Carolinas. Mel and I have talked about our coming to visit. We're going to see how much time we have since she's not right on the highway.
LOL, actually I will be. We finally found a place to move to... it's about half a mile from the exit.
No commune on this one... it's ittle.
Sweet, make sure you go through W.V. during the day, it's awesome. Take pictures and pretend I'm there. This is all about me. LOL.
Remembering what's at the end of that trip should make it go faster.
And, it's the long trip back home that is so annoying, yet so satisfying when you get there.
Well, this time there will be no long drive back, ATM. We're going for good. So, thankfully, the first drive is the ''drive back home.''
Really? Kewl. A new beginning, so to speak. How very exciting. I'm envious.
Yup. I'm not as hearty as I used to be. I can't take one more midwest winter. And now that my sister's moved away from here, I don't have any any family left in Michigan. But since I've lived in Jax before, and my husband was there for practically half of his life, we both have friends there and his family is there.
yes, and this is one of the reasons that I do not date them.
I appreciate the kind words, but this isn't teaching you anything you didn't already know. With what you have had to endure both being atheist and lesbian, you show me how to be strong in spite of what others would have me to do
But you're very welcome and thank you for calling me a good person. I try my hardest to be one and I have the best intentions when I act. I don't always get it right, but I try. We're only human
Cue Human League: I'm only human. Of flesh and blood, I'm made. I'm only human. Born to makes mistakes (I am just a maann)
strength is something that I tend to stumble into accidentally. I can't really take credit for that.
By the way, the atheist went to a Catholic church today and spoke to a priest - mainly to ask for directions to the nearest catholic bookstore, but still. And I happened to (accidentally) be wearing one of my atheist t-shirts. It was interesting.
I used to have a lot of long, in-depth conversations with a priest that I used to know. He was one of the smartest men that I've ever know. I wonder what ever happened to him sometimes.
Strength isn't something you stumble into. Strength is a choice you make when you act in spite of any fears you may have or adversity you encounter. Strength is also something that comes as a result of getting through those experiences that are designed to destroy you
Your character (from what I've experienced here) leads me to believe that you are a very strong person in general.
I wouldn't totally praise me yet. I actually agree with a lot of the points you and other atheists raise (which is why I still engage you all) but a lot of points you guys bring up actually help to solidify my current beliefs (I know I know.. confirmation bias), but I still agree with a lot of your points because it mirrors my thinking regarding organized religion
Could I ask if those particular points that help solidify your beliefs are ones you are willing to discuss?
Certainly, and to be honest ( so to speak), ATM, our conversation the other day regarding that I wasn't wanting to discuss over HP had nothing at all to do with you. It really didn't. I think someone else pointed out for me that sometimes it is difficult (for me) to keep track of some things when 6 or 7 people are trying to weigh in (especially when there are those who will attack me, blast me, condemn me, etc) for my beliefs. Ironically, this has more to do more with my fellow believers than atheists. I have stated several times that you and I have had good conversations and I am willing to discuss things with you. There are some instances that I prefer just talking about some things without others weighing in on a conversation that they do not understand because we have a unique communication style with one another
Fair enough. When you first arrived, you certainly gave me the impression that you could disconnect yourself from your beliefs, question and criticize them along with the rest of us. Was I wrong?
If I was wrong, then it would appear that you also take your beliefs to be part of you, like your arms and legs. I probably don't have to remind you that those beliefs are actually not yours, but were formed by others a long time ago. You're just accepting them, but they aren't really your beliefs.
I've heard and given praise for Mo and Mel, both of whom can for the most part, disconnect themselves from their beliefs and honestly criticize them. They are certainly to be respected for that.
I also probably don't have to remind you that if in fact, you are disconnecting yourself from your beliefs in the honest attempt to question and criticize them (I have observed this from you already), then you know only too well that no one here is, in your own words, "attack me, blast me, condemn me, etc) for my beliefs." We are doing no such thing, we are doing all of those things to the beliefs.
You yourself have attacked, blasted and condemned certain beliefs that are part of your religion, ones that you adamantly don't accept because they are obviously morally corrupt and dangerous. Am I wrong?
So, to move forward, shake hands and continue on as our discussions as if nothing happened, please remember we are criticizing the beliefs, not you. There is nothing you can say about your beliefs that will warrant us attacking you.
Except one thing. Honesty. If you're dishonest, for example, denying and rejecting the facts of science, you'll get called on it and you know that. So far, I don't think I've ever observed that from you, which garners mountains of respect, certainly from me if no one else.
That being said, the rest of the discussions regarding your beliefs should be a breeze. Perhaps, those beliefs that you don't wish to discuss were placed out in the public eye and wind up being far less important than you imagined. Perhaps, they get resolved and you find closure. Who knows?
The point is that there should be no problem for you especially, to discuss those beliefs.
I totally get that. You have been attacked personally by a number of believers here, being called every bad name they can associate with blasphemy. So what? Welcome to the club.
The dogs bark, but the caravan passes.
Well, that there is the problem. If you come onto public forums, folks are going to join in whether you like it or not. They will not understand, they will say all kinds of things. So what? That should in no way be a detriment to the "unique communication style" you have with anyone. Your discussions with them will continue unabated, unfettered and indifferent to what anyone else says. Me included.
No you aren't wrong. I am able to disconnect myself from my beliefs and discuss things (and I believe that I have on more than one occasion)
As it relates to dealing with you and the other atheists, I understand that and have actually come to your defense and the defense of others when you have been accused of attacking others by trying to explain to them how and why it really isn't meant to be personal and got accused of being atheist myself, (a debate with Kiss and tales regarding a statement you made a month or so ago comes to mind). I don't view too many of what we have encountered as any attack on my belief. I see you guys as questioning and we have had more respectful and objective (more or less) discussions than actual debates. I think where you and I have butted heads more on is in the use of trigger words (rubbish, baloney,) that do sometimes evoke a reaction (and in retrospect that has more to do with me than you, but I'm trying to work on that)
It's not necessarily the corrupt and dangerous part as to why I have disagreed with them. Yes there are some that are dangerous and corrupt by the people that have expressed them, it's more of the fact that the people use these scriptures as a valid excuse to try to elevate themselves to a point where they think they can sit in self-righteous judgment of others.
Hands shaken with that understanding. I never once thought you were personally against me (except where you thought I was behaving contradictory, apparently, to what you might have seen from me in the past)
And I appreciate that respect. I do not reject facts, statistics, or anything scientific at all. Science is very valuable and kind of factors into my beliefs (which when we discuss I am sure will provide a lot of humor for you in some cases). But I will always be open to the fact that I could be wrong. I still try to live the best way I possibly can and go to my grave knowing I tried my best and leave the rest of it to whatever happens at that time.. In other words, I'll cross that bridge when I get there.
Fair enough. It just sometimes bothers me more because I almost expect better from my fellow believers and it's disappointing at times when that expectation isn't met, so (for me) it's better to not wish to be bothered with areas which I know will cause my fellow believers to stray outside of what we are supposed to stand for (IMO). I know this won't stop them from doing it to others, but as a believer myself, I have an obligation to them not to willingly take them away from that standard myself. I might not be able to control their responses, but I can control my actions that may garner such a response..
From our point of view, it is the beliefs themselves that are dangerous and corrupt because they are being used to justify atrocities.
For example, the concept of "love" in Christianity is morally bankrupt. That's why it's so easily used to elevate those who sit in self-righteous judgment of others.
That could have a whole lot to do with their lack of morals and ethics. Notice that the closer the believer is to their religion, the less morals and ethics they exhibit?
That's exactly my point, you are in control.
Fair enough. I mentioned something similar to this in another thread (no, wait it was earlier in this thread...LOL)
Could you elaborate on this for me? I'm not seeing the correlation between love being morally bankrupt and people choosing to sit in self righteous judgment of others in defiance of what the bible teaches.
Perhaps, but this could be as a result of control programming rather than independent study
Christian 'love' is not about love at all, it is about evangelism and selfishness and is merely an attempt to get in good with ones god, but has little to do with the other people's welfare or concern.
You are able to do this? So when believers share thoughts or convictions with you, you are able to consider them before you dismiss them and scoff?
Notice how much better the communication is between those who aren't emotionally attached to their beliefs or lack there of and those who see any comment as an personal attack? I know it's difficult as many have been taught that questioning ones beliefs is giving into Satin, but not using your brain to examine the world seems to be a waste of what you were given.
So in your relationships, you prefer to leave emotion out of it?
There is religion and there is relationship. Some of us have been trying to share the concept of being in a relationship with God.
That's not possible to do considering no gods have ever been shown to exist. No explanation of any relationship here has ever gone beyond the emotional feelings that person experiences, falling well short of any kind of relationship with anyone or anything other than with themselves.
You may be in a relationship with yourself. It okay to love yourself, only you have to acknowledge yourself. It's easy to see as your version of God seems to give you what you want or need and since you appear unable to see others as different or unlike you, you fail to notice that we don't need the illusion that you have.
I think the importance in communication isn't so much about separating yourself from your beliefs (or lack thereof) as it is in having an understanding of the person you are communicating with as well as their communication style so that you can take those things into consideration when you are trying to convey your message. That way, you are able to make some adjustments so that you can express yourself as according to that style
Adapting what you say in order to communicate to an individual may not be the best solution in these forums as it prevents you from communicating your thoughts to all as all are able to read your thoughts. Is this why you want to communicate privately about specific things? It begins to look like you are not being honest with your posts. I don't think that's the case, I'm just saying.
No, you can communicate your thoughts effectively and say what's on your mind, but in individualizing your communication depending on who you are dealing with basically allows you to speak that individual's "language" so to speak so that they make sure they have the clearest message.
For instance, I don't speak with you exactly the same way as I do with ATM, Julie, Mo, Melissa, Chris, Beth, etc. We