Why do atheists say God doesn't exist because there is suffering?
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.jewfaq.org/alephbet.htm
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.
Yes
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?
Exodus 33:11
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."
Complete contradiction.
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.Well, was kind of busy with my college and stuffs!
Anyway Like I said earlier, I respect your views. But you know sometimes I responded in a way you don't like. Sorry for that.
Enjoy your freedom!
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?
Yes!
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.
If you want to go that route, there are also unitarians who believe that God's name is Jesus.
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.
Ok mister?
But when you are wrong, it needs to be said, and it appears it needs to be said often.
So let the discussion continue............ok ...
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.Yeah, that's the only rational response to you most of the time. Glad to see you acknowledge it!
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.
That's very true that the NT makes clear that Jesus came for the Jews first. They are the chosen people and nothing has changed that. But Jesus talking to Phoenicians and Samaritans showed that He did not come only for the Jews.
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:
John 1:1
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.Deleted
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.
So, laughing at a post that is funny is the same as sneering. Hence, whenever you laugh a something, you are in fact sneering? Okee dokee.
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 GodCheck this out..
http://raitudisong.hubpages.com/hub/God-is-Love-or-FearFor 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.
Which Moses?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.
Silly me.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?I never said I wasn't, I just think it's pretty clear most of the time when I am.
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? … ost2442175Offended? 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.
Thanks for reminding me that I was talking to a cardboard cutout and you to real people.
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 itNah - 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.
CANADA! EH!
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.
Treated like royalty. It seems strange to me.
Meanwhile in Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laureen_Harper
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_AgeHave 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.
Well Radman!
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.
Basket weaving?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.
Wow interesting!
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 32:39Yes 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.
Alright!
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."'
In the beginning, God created man. And man has been trying to return the compliment ever since.
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.Alright!
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.
Anyway,
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.well interesting!
Alright,
Is there anyone in this forum who you think is going under the leading of the Holy Spirit?
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 youPlease 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.
Thank you for making your stand clear.
Yes, we are to follow Christ and not His followers!
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.Thanks Deepes.
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. .
Have you read the bible in Greek and or hebrew?
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 translationExcuse 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.
Well Deepes,
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.
I think they're referring to a strictly single-horned rhinoceros that's supposed to be extincted.
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=4140How 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.I know this is what you will say!
thatsokay with me !!!
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!
Oh yeah
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?
makes sense...now where have I heard that before?
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!
For you
Love=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 freedomI 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.
It's the same misunderstanding you have over and over again, no matter how many times its explained to you.
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:
Genesis
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."
Exodus
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."
Deuteronomy
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?
Luke
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.
2Corinthians
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.
1Peter
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
noun
1.
a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
2.
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.
You mentioned,
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.In other words, you make up an imaginary friend and chose to adore him. That's hilarious.
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.
Got it!
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.
yes, and the poster of that particular post didn't express fear. He expressed the complete absurdity of such a notion at the idea that something was waiting to judge him. that's not fear.
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.
Carry on.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
P.S... JUDAS!!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 5thWhy 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...
+1
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 outYes 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
and you're entitled to your opinion - even though we all know that it's wrong.
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
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..
Fair enoughFrom 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 studyChristian '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 all find some common ground where our discussions are universal at times, but I try to suit my communication style to each of you while still giving the same message and clarifying myself.
I guess it's similar to trying to adapt your speech patterns to accommodate the region you are in to try to match the environment. Like speaking slang when you are in more urban areas vs using what is considered proper English in a corporate environment..
I hope this made sense (I'm not always the best communicator)
I prefer to communicate privately about some things for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, I prefer at times to just deal one on one (such as we did, you know what I mean) to avoid misinterpretation by outside influences who might try to change the tone of a conversation (not saying that nobody here is intelligent enough to interpret things for themselves, but outside influences can also affect a conversation). The other main reason is because given my particular beliefs I prefer not to have to deal with personal attacks from some of my fellow believers. This has nothing to do with being afraid of anyone poking holes in my logic. I'd just as soon not deal with people coming directly at me if I can avoid it. Knowing that some are and always be closed minded to different beliefs, I prefer to hold conversations with people that I know are open minded enough to to be willing to discuss philosophy, not closed minded to wish to debate who is right or wrong in something that nobody has proof of for knowledge, just things that reinforce a belief.
Edit* As you and the other atheists have pointed out, if someone is to post on the forums, they must be open minded enough to discuss a belief and defend that belief. In that same vein, it is also important to be open minded enough to listen objectively to other points that are raised and to stay on the topic of the discussion itself, not switch it to your opinion of the person. There are some here that prefer to do the latter. For me, I'd rather not convey all of my thoughts and positions to those who are not open minded enough to at least consider what I am saying without attacking me with self righteousness.
Just a personal preference.Yes, some have a hard time discussing their beliefs without becoming emotional and making it personal and getting banned. It really is to bad.
I agree with this statement. With this in mind, I sometimes would rather not lead any others into doing things that would get them banned..
We tell them over and over to not make it personal. I personally only ever report spam, but have somehow been banned a few times myself. We can't control others, if they want to resort to calling some a name then they get banned. Emotional... personal... banned.
Of course. But, do you actually think you are anyone else here has an original thought when it comes to their beliefs?
The answer is yes, original thoughts do come to light and they are indeed, considered.
However, the same old tired testimonials that have been tromped out time and again, over and over, are rarely, if ever considered.
This almost always happens when a believer signs up here and "shares" their beliefs for the first time, well... at least, for them, it's the first time.
People make the mistake of taking Satan out of the equation. It is people who cause suffering. It is out of their own free will that they empower suffering. What has God done about it? He sent His son to take on what empowers Satan. If we repent we disable Satan and evil is less powerful. If we all repented and accepted Jesus then Satan would wither up and die and evil will be no more. So the onus is on us to eradicate evil. If God has to kill evil people it would not make a difference. Evil people you shall always have. Let's take the ridiculous Noah's Ark story for example. "God" attempted to eradicate evil but it failed miserably. Why? Because the propensity for evil is ingrained in our minds. It is in our DNA.
As I said, evil will not be fully disabled on earth. Eventually there will come a time where people won't have free will to choose either God or Satan. They'll be more robots and thus this is the opportunity for God to finally destroy Satan.
We all have the ability to commit evil. It's amazing what one's environment can be to trigger off evil. God came to save all. If someone has committed unspeakable evil and they truly repent, they shall be forgiven.
God did not create Satan and cast Him out of heaven. Pagan stories. How can evil exist in heaven? Therefore, how can Satan have an evil nature? How is it possible to have a rebellion in heaven? Those who love Jesus do call on Him to deal with Satan in our own personal lives.
Sin is evil. Why must I be the robot? How about the attacker being programmed to not commit evil? Sometimes people don't commit evil to keep up appearances or because it is not socially acceptable. And some don't commit evil because it appalls them.
The truth is that God does interact with the world through people who are good. But God has never interacted directly with us and that includes people such as Moses. God does not have a physical body and does not have an audible voice.
Something we may deem as God being good to us may not be at all. God being good to us is giving us our daily bread and helping us against evil. That doesn't mean we are prevented from suffering. It means God helps us through suffering. So people must realize is that when bad times happen and God allows it, it means we are meant to endure us to be more spiritual refined. After all, how can people be compassionate without ever having suffered?If the god of the old testament is not the same as the god of the new, can you explain to me why Jesus (if he existed) was a Jew, and referenced on multiple occasions old testament scripture and stories and characters?
Jesus had to be a descent of some original people. The prophets were from God. Give me and example of Jesus mentioning the OT and I'll explain.
The work of our Lord Jesus was not needful on account of any necessity in the Divine Being. Jehovah would have been inconceivably glorious had the human race perished, and had no atonement been offered. Although the life-work and death-agony of the Son did reflect unparalleled lustre upon every attribute of God, yet the Most Blessed and Infinitely Happy God stood in no need of the obedience and death of his Son; it was for our sakes that the work of redemption was undertaken, and not because of any lack or want on the part of the Most High. How modestly does the Saviour here estimate his own goodness! What overwhelming reasons have we for imitating his humility! "If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?" (Job 35:7.)
So what you are saying is - basically your god screwed up, but it wasn't his fault, and it then offered up the second best sacrifice for three days out of 13.8 billion years. And that was good enough to fix the screw up? Please - feel free to imitate his humility. If more of you did that, the world would be a much better place.
It does not counter the idea of a god at all it does however completely counter the idea of a Judeo Christian god or indeed any benevolent god.
God allows the innocent to suffer therefore he is not benevolent.
Before anyone talks about "free will" that is a nonsense argument, humans firstly scientifically do not have total free will and secondly are not capable of for example imagining any color we can't see, in the same way we cold be incapable of imagining or committing murder, slavery or rape but despite our supposed creation by a benevolent god we are not. Therefore a benevolent god is impossible given suffering.
A creator god is however still entirely possible given suffering.So you do believe we have some free will if you say we don't have TOTAL free will? Hasn't an atheist exercised his free will to reject God and hasn't a Christian exercised their free will to choose Jesus?
Do we choose to rape and murder? or rather did God design us knowing that we would rape and murder. The only free will then is that which belongs to god, accepting that we were created by an all knowing being means he KNEW EXACTLY what we would become and what we would choose to do and made us to be that way meaning we have no free will at all. Cannot possibly have free will.
Yes, God is all knowing. Man is not. Man tries to understand his surroundings my mere reason and speculation. But often times our reasoning is based on our own circumstances, surroundings and community. So, in order to understand the things of God, you need to beyond your mere reasoning...
He did not design us to rape and murder. Our DNA got corrupted by extra-terrestrials through genetic experiments. That is pretty clear when reading ancient texts. Why would God create imperfect creatures? Of course He would not. The angels in heaven are perfect.
God knows that because of our corrupted nature we could never reconcile with Him on our own. That is why Jesus came to take on the ransom of sin. We can with our free will choose Him to cleanse our sins and that is what disables evil. Everyone can do something about evil in this world.Please excuse my skepticism, but is this christian thinking, Claire?
No, it is not and it irritates me that the Christian church does not question things. They think the Bible is inerrant and thus anything that is not in it must be false.
I'm a free thinker.What would you call it?
P.S You liked the basis for my name (my tag on FB)?I did like it and you are deeper than you give yourself credit for.
Thanks. That's why I call myself deepes mind. My name is almost like a standing disclaimer...LOL
Thank you Claire for providing us with a good laugh.
You need to read more into ancient history.
There is no rational reason, reading into ancient history and literature or not, to extrapolate that extra terrestrials came to earth and mated with humans in order to muck up "god's" natural order. Have you been watching too much Ancient Aliens? Are you sure that you're a christian, and not a Raelian?
Ancient Aliens make a hell a lot of sense. Even Genesis records it:
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose
Genesis 6:1-4
Genesis inaccurately records Elohim as God which actually is a plural thus gods. So the sons of the gods mated with the daughters of man. And a race of giants were spawned.let me get this straight.
You think that the "sons of god" aren't angels, or the race of adam (who were called the sons of god) but they were actually aliens? Where did these aliens come from? If aliens exist and travel to earth, then doesn't that negate the whole jesus thing anyway? Why would god send his son to earth to die - and not anywhere else? Doesn't that make your christian perspective even more arrogantly absurd? To think that out of all planets and all life on other planets that earth is somehow "special" enough to get god's attention and/or sacrifice?
This is a perfect example to me of how anyone can pull verses out of the bible to make it say whatever they want it to say - regardless of how absurd it sounds.Then how did I come to be gay? Maybe I am an alien!!!!!!
ooooh me too. Gay people are aliens. Everything makes sense now.
No, no, no. WOMEN are aliens. I explained this to my husband the other day. It's why we're really in ultimate control of the world and can keep it a secret. Men - totally human. Give them control of something and they gotta blab about it all over the place. Jonny...while you are a man, since you are gay, we let you be in the club.
Then I am not alienated after all, thanks Mo, you are a sweet one!
Crap, I'm gonna get left out again. It's because of my dirty face isn't it? Dirty faced people are always being discriminated against.
No, no, no..... There are anti-discrimination laws in place to stop that sort of thing.... now go and get yourself some soap and a towel and stop blabbering. On second thoughts... for God's Sake!
No, it's people like who think they can fix me with a little water. I was born this way and I'll go out this way. I'll be proudly marching in the dirty face pride parade this weekend. Once again there have been threats of water hoses being used but that is no deterrent to us. Last year I was approached by a mom with a kleenex and spit, little scary...
You most certainly are not. I have a list of approved men already. My husband's on it.
So, some of you straight guys are allowed, but only if you adhere to the rules.
All the answers I can come up for to answer that question will result in a ban.
Let me give it some thought for a day or so and maybe I'll come up with something pg13.Uh...silly. Give your gender and your gender preferences, you're like the UBER alien!
Now my fire is gone out, it's 20 minutes to midnight and I'm getting cold, so must get back to bed. Will catch up with more of your intelligent outbursts tomorrow... Good night folks.
Ok.... a Lien is "A right given to another by the owner of property to secure a debt, or one created by law in favor of certain creditors."
So you are only half a lien, Melissa. Interesting!
Now, back on topic, how does all this add up to an atheist's comprehension of the existence of god?We're notorious for going off topic, Jonny. Sorry about that. But, seriously, I think it all boils down to a lot of atheists feeling that their arguments are even more valid because the vast majority of those who call ourselves Christians can't even agree. Half of us defend God when it comes to the issue of evil in the world. The other half is somehow convinced that the suffering is a positive thing in the grand scheme of God's plan. The third half, just seems to think that it is what it is, and since the majority of it is completely beyond our power to prevent or to change, the best thing we can do is to reach out and do what WE can...which, unfortunately, because we're so messy as a race, and because so many just spend their lives consumed by their own greed, pleasure, and advancement, will never be enough.
No we don't and the reason we can't possibly in the sense you describe is simple biology.
We are more than 98% genetically identical to Chimps, we are evolutionarily strongly related to them, we come from the same areas and developed on the same planet and yet cannot interbreed, the idea that aliens from light years away who developed on a different planet, with different conditions at a different time line and stage with no evolutionary relation could possibly interbreed with us is so utterly ridiculous that it genuinely made me laugh, I asked a friend who has a degree in biology and she snorted coffee out of her nose.
Simply scientifically impossible.Perhaps, Jonny.. I might fall in there too because of my tolerance level
Are you going to throw poop? Chimps throw poop. I'm pretty certain that the 2% that we DON'T share with chimps includes poop throwing.
They really, really do throw poop. I know this first hand as an incensed target. Of poop.Maybe, who amongst us hasn't thrown a little poop? Can't be just me!
Oh, a mucky job Deepes, but someone has to do it.......
Reminds me of one definition of Stress: "The confusion caused when the mind tries to overcome the body's basic desire to kick the living s...t out of some a....ole that desperately deserves it."
You are simply not understanding. The aliens are spawns of Satin and therefore are able to interbreed. I'm clearly a product of such a meeting. I guess the prove will like in the examination of old human DNA being compared to modern DNA. So far we are down to about 7000 years back with no abnormalities found, but that just a coverup as science doesn't want to reveal the existence of aliens they distract instead with DNA from Neanderthals and Denisovans.
I didn't say we were created by aliens but genetically modified. What I meant be genetically modifying means doing it in a "laboratory" whatever that ancient equivalent is. Can you explain how Japanese people are related to chimps. Out of interest sake, do you see any resemblance. Where did the various races come from?
I'm sobbing into my pillow because your biologist friend thinks I'm ridiculous.SO you believe that thousands of years ago there was a species which had the ridiculous amount of technology required to travel to our solar system and alter our genetics in a lab and then left?
Well that is impossible too.
First off we have mapped almost the entire human genome/DNA path, only tiny inactive fractions are left that is the parts that have not been mapped do not do anything at all, all the genome mapped thus far has only terraneus (from earth) origin so it's a proved fact that we have no active alien DNA.
Second it's easy to spot spliced DNA, it develops irregularly from the usual genetic strand and we have absolutely none in our DNA.
Humans are cousins to chimps the predecessors of which evolved into humans in Africa, as humanity left Africa it split and headed in every direction of the globe where different environmental conditions required different adaptations which we evolved ie. black skin is better for dealing with the sun and Africa is very sunny hence Africans are mainly dark skinned.
Yes we all look quite a bit like chimps when compared to other animals, same basic body shape, hands etc, chimps even have fingerprints.
Your "theory" though it isn't worthy of that name, is categorically impossible in any sense.Here are a few things to consider.
Sorry that I have to copy and paste at times but I don't have all day.
"One of the main problems with a comparative evolutionary analysis between human and chimp DNA is that some of the most critical DNA sequence is often omitted from the scope of the analysis. Another problem is that only similar DNA sequences are selected for analysis. As a result, estimates of similarity become biased towards the high side. An inflated level of overall DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimps is then reported to the general public, which obviously supports the case for human evolution. Since most people are not equipped to investigate the details of DNA analysis, the data remains unchallenged.
The supposed fact that human DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to chimpanzee DNA is actually misleading.
The availability of the chimp genome sequence in 2005 has provided a more realistic comparison. It should be noted that the chimp genome was sequenced to a much less stringent level than the human genome, and when completed it initially consisted of a large set of small un-oriented and random fragments. To assemble these DNA fragments into contiguous sections that represented large regions of chromosomes, the human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome.
At this point in time, a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between chimp and human has not been done and certainly should be. Despite this fact, several studies have been performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall similarity estimates as low as 86 percent were obtained.3 Once again, keep in mind that these regions were hand-picked because they already showed similarity at some level. The fact remains that there are large blocks of sequence anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions. In addition, the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps and vice versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"
"Next, they only used the protein coding portions of genes for their comparison. Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients.3 The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in "non-coding regions," which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes. When these regions of the gene are included in a similarity estimate between human and chimp, the values can drop markedly and will vary widely according to the types of genes being compared."
My commentary: Protein coding portions of the DNA does not account for things like language. In fact, we have 90% of junk DNA. In other words, it is according to mainstream science, not of any use. So link chimps to humans is not all that accurate. According to a Russian experiment, that DNA is responsible for things like language.
"Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients.3 The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in "non-coding regions," which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes. When these regions of the gene are included in a similarity estimate between human and chimp, the values can drop markedly and will vary widely according to the types of genes being compared.
Interestingly, current research is confirming that most of what makes humans biologically unique when compared to chimps and other animals is how genes are controlled and regulated in the genome. Several studies within the past few years are demonstrating clear differences in individual gene and gene network expression patterns between humans and chimps in regard to a wide number of traits.4, 5 Of course, the largest differences are observed in regard to brain function, dexterity, speech, and other traits with strong cognitive components. To make the genetic landscape even more complicated, a number of recent studies are also confirming that close to 93 percent of the genome is transcriptionally active (functional).6 Not so long ago, scientists thought that only 3 to 5 percent of the genome that contained the protein coding regions was functional; the rest was considered "junk DNA."
The chimp genome is 10 to 12 percent larger than the human genome and is not in a near-finished state like the human genome; it is considered a rough draft.
When large regions of the two genomes are compared, critical sequence dissimilarities become evident.
Extremely large blocks of dissimilarity exist on a number of key chromosomes, including marked structural differences between the entire male (Y) chromosomes.
Distinct differences in gene function and regulation are now known to be a more significant factor in determining differences in traits between organisms than the gene sequence alone. Research in this area has clearly demonstrated that this is the case with humans and apes, where marked dissimilarities in expression patterns are evident.
http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp- … -ancestry/
"The Human Genome Project, an international endeavor to “determine the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up DNA,” was begun in 1990
It involved geneticists from the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, China, and India. In 2000, a ’rough draft’ of the genome was announced jointly by then US President William Clinton and Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair. In 2003, a more complete draft was made available (Wikipedia)."
My commentary: According to those studies, it was found that humans have an extra 223 genes acquired not vertically on the evolutionary Tree of Life but horizontally. It is surmised that some form of bacteria was inserted in man.
“It is a jump that does not follow current evolutionary theories,” said Steven Scherer, director of mapping of the Human Genome Sequencing Center, Baylor College of Medicine.
http://scienceray.com/biology/the-human … ien-genes/
Nobel Prize winner Dr. Frances Crick, who designed the DNA helix, acknowledged this.
"In his book Life Itself, Dr. Crick said that creatures from another solar system brought the seeds necessary for life to lifeless planets and, thanks to their kind intervention, life began here"
I think this is why Richard Dawkins thinks it is possible that aliens seeded the earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoS78lNqMIt appears that a lack of intelligence and willingness to trust any "idiotic source" that confirm their views is the only argument for most believers.
"Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children"Look at the references on the site. It's not made up. It's only idiotic to you because you don't want to believe it. Refute all my points.
Yea, credible sensible site indeed.
And scienceray, who can question scienceray?All these people are Christian, right?
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2004. Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature. 431 (7011): 931-945.
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature. 437 (7055): 69-87.
Anzai, T. et al. 2003. Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (13): 7708-13.
Calarco, J. et al. 2007. Global analysis of alternative splicing differences between humans and chimpanzees. Genes & Development. 21: 2963-2975.
Cáceres, M. et al. 2003. Elevated gene expression levels distinguish human from non-human primate brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (22): 13030-13035.
The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 447 (7146): 799-816.
Criswell, Daniel. 2006. What Makes Us Human? Acts & Facts. 35 (1).
I'm still waiting for your refutation.And those people never said humans are alien modified. They also didn't say human genome is exactly similar to chimpanzee genome. Human genome is similar to chimpanzee genome, just like any other two closely related species are, that's all. All further stuff is the "creation" of charlatans who wants to live idly at the expense of fools who deliberately want to be deceived.
I am waiting for you to say something substantial, that is something that is not a wild guess without any basis, to refute.I never claimed they said humans are alien modified. What they are suggesting is that something got introduced into the evolutionary process that made us the way we are. I never claimed they said the human genome is exactly similar.
You are comparing the the similar genes of chimps to use that is responsible for protein-building. Those genes that are controlled and regulated in the genome drop significantly in difference. "Large blocks of dissimilarity exist on a number of key chromosomes, including marked structural differences between the entire male (Y) chromosomes."
Mainstream scientists say they have no idea what junk DNA is used for. Therefore how can you compare that DNA to chimps? Because it is theorized that junk DNA is used for the ability to speak languages then I can see something majorly is different from chimp DNA to human DNA. We have to ask ourselves, why can't apes speak?Do you need papers to understand this much? Humans are short of one pair of chromosomes compared to apes, isn't that explanation enough?
The only argument is that chimpanzee's and human's gene share many common characteristics, just like any two closely related genus (You know that they are not of the same species) but have as much difference as two different genus. It only says because of the resemblance in genes, proteins, body anatomy and brain character, they are a every closely related species, more closely related that a chimpanzee and gorilla. It means once in our past we had a common ancestor. If you analyse the genes of cousins their will be difference, does that make them "not cousins"? Does that make one cousins genes are contaminated by "aliens"(extra earth organisms)?
Speak or use language? To be able to speak as we do is an ability and shortcoming at the same time. It is only the language(by which the memory can be enhanced and problem solving transferred across generations) that distinguish humans from apes, and that only is the difference. How many genes are needed for "speech"? Sound making capability is there for all apes, its only the extra "vocal cords".
Claire, my Dear, so much of what you are saying could be labelled "The Gospel According to St. Claire." There is virtually nothing about what you are telling us that equates to good logic and sense.
For you to continue believing all or any of it is your choice, but I can see most other hubbers here have the same cynicism as I do.
The stories about "god" and "satan" in the bible are metaphorical. They are not intended to be taken literally.
And the idea of an ape being genitally modified in order to resemble a human seems totally far-fetched in my estimation. Might be wrong, but can you justify what you are talking about?Who says the stories of God and Satan are meant to be taken metaphorically? Is this the gospel according to St Johnny?
I didn't say apes were genetically modified. Humans were. Quite frankly, I don't believe we ever were cousins of the apes. The genetic modification caused humans to have the propensity to do evil.I can only apply the sensible logic that my particular mind accepts. If you wish to see other logic, then that is your choice.
I am not trying to change the views of any religious persons who keep their opinions for them selfs. Although I do see religious people wanting to change atheists away from atheism.
I see the metaphors as being so obvious in the bible. You obviously don't want to see them as metaphor because that does not suit your desire. So be it.
What makes you believe they are metaphoric? Can you give me an example?
I don't like to interject in anything Claire is talking about.
So having thought better of what I was going to say, I don't think I will.So....you interjected to inform us that you were NOT going to interject? Got it.
Now I'm just messing with you because its FridayMessing with me? Are you messing with ME? ME? ME?
*Ahem* meemeemee.
Anyone for harmony? I sing deep baritone.Lol omfsm... Is that... *gasp* a sense of humor?
Stop the presses. Someone call someone.
Maybe this is the proof of a divine being that I've been looking for.Obviously you don't read all my posts.
Some of them are quite funny.
And some of them I'm actually trying to be humorous.
If only they were one and the same...I think that's my problem. I have a hard time reconciling the difference between your funny posts and the ones where you're actually trying to use humor. It all makes sense now.
What the hell did earthworms ever do to you?
I guess you've never bitten into an apple and found half a worm eating your fruit? He tried to steal the fruit you paid for.
Claire, this is a particularly upsetting post. We all look different because we adapted/evolved to our environment. The farther north us humans went the lighter skin we needed to absorb the proper amount of vitamin D. I'm not sure why you singled out the Japanese?
So how did the DNA in our body somehow change our facial features? What is in the Far East that make Japanese people look the way they do?
I'll tell you something. It doesn't matter matter how long over thousands of years black people migrate to other countries where it is colder, they will never change to white people.
I singled out Japanese people because they don't remotely look like chimps.Adaptation to a new environment. Longer thinner noses to warm the air and lighter skin to get the right amount of DNA from the sun.
They adapted to a different environment separately from Europeans.
Skin colour changing has nothing to do with temperature, it's the lack of sun that would cause problems for people with dark skin. Those born with lighter skin would be stronger and would survive and breed the next generation.
It's no coincidence that the lightest coloured skinned people come from the far north.
Do you think Europeans and Africans look more like chimps?
How do longer thinner noses warm the air? Do you believe that if I remain in South Africa for thousands of years my descendants would eventually be black?
What is different about their environment?
Many black people live in colder areas around the world and don't have problems.
You know, many "gods" have been described as being white and fair-skinned. Take Quetzacoatl for example. He imparted knowledge to the Aztecs and Egyptians. And, well, the pyramids give an indication of alien technology.
The Nazi believed in an alien race created the Aryans who were white-skinned. Noah from the Bible had white-skin.
If Command Sergeant Major Robert Dean who worked at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters from 1963-1967 is to be believed, aliens mingle with humans today and so it would not be so outlandish to think we got their white genes.
It's an idea worth entertaining.
Chimps have the appearance of round eyes just like Europeans and Africans. Japanese people don't give the appearance of round eyes.Is the object of your posts entertainment, Claire? Is it really that difficult to see how air passing of a longer, i.e. larger, area of mucous lining within the nasal passages could warm the air more efficiently?
Sure, Claire.
This the question I put into Google:
What is the function of the turbinate and ethmoidal bones in the nose?
And one link I found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasal_conchaIt does not say the turbinate and ethmoidal bones help humans to adapt to colder climates. Unless I missed that part?
Those "concha," or curly processes of bone, arise from the Turbinate Bones. There is a vertical plate of bone dividing the two sides of the nose. Part of this plate, at least in the human, descends from the Ethmoid Bone.
The surfaces of these and other boney parts of the inner nose are covered with mucous membrane.
One of the functions of the mucous membrane is to moisten and warm the air as it passes into the lungs. The larger the nasal passages, the greater the area of mucous membrane and the more moistening and warming takes place. This would mean that animals could adapt to colder climates by evolving anatomically and help to ensure survival of the species.How can the warming of the air through the nose help insulate people? What about when one breathes through the mouth? Do you think penguins in Antarctica are insulated from the cold from mucous membranes?
So then why don't you google it and find out?
Cold air, if reaches the lungs can precipitate infection in addition to causing constriction of airways causing asthma and like problems. No penguins are not protected from the cold by breathing but its lungs are. Also the nasal turbinates help penguins prevent water lose.
So what if you breathe through the mouth? Cold air will directly reach the lungs.
If you breathe through mouth, in the absence of proper medical care, you will be ill of health and will die before your time. [Your teeth will decay fast, you will develop asthma, pulmonary hypertension, recurrent pneumonia..]
That doesn't explain why one can adapt to the cold when one often breathes through the mouth.
That's what your going with to explain the racial differences. Aliens came down and for some reason only messed with the non blacks? Sure, ignore the evidence and go with that.
All people living in northern climates are told to take Vitamin D supplements and still many are vitamin D deficient even with better modern nutrition. Do a google search on Vitamin D deficiency.Not too sure you can use logic with her, mate. If she's serious about this alien thing...
The "alien thing" only sounds ludicrous to you because you weren't taught it as fact from young. Those in power have refined the art of brain-washing. Teach the public what is acceptable and what is not thus leading to non questioning of other possibilities.
Blacks were, too. That is why they sin like the rest of us. After all, aliens did say, "Let us make man in our image."
About the various races, it is worth entertaining that idea. I don't know what God intended us to look like. I just don't know. All I know is that ancient texts talk about splicing DNA and that includes humans with animals. That's just like what happens today.
Can you give me your source about your Vitamin D claim?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12899511
http://www.nasw.org/vitamin-d-levels-de … -evolved-1
Claire, DNA was not known to humans until fairly recently. Can you show me the ancient texts that talk about splicing DNA?It still does not explain why white people's facial features are noticeably different to black people's. What was the evolutionary purpose of white people's lips being thinner?
http://www.godsebook.org/enki.html
Read that. Just because DNA wasn't known to humans back then didn't mean they weren't known by extra-terrestrials. People back in the days of the great pyramids of Giza wouldn't have known how to build them with their seemingly lack of mathematical skills required to build those pyramids. And lifting those pieces of the pyramid is another story altogether.
Throughout ancient cultures, people were very much depicted as half human and half animal. Take Horus, Thoth from ancient Egypt, for example. Today scientists splice human DNA with animals most disgustingly enough.
Here's an interesting discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … DLmqfAZ2C0Spaceships and aliens coinciding with mythology? More Ancient Aliens nuttery than I can shake a stick at?!
Why does that sound familiar...If you were taught from small that this was fact you wouldn't think it's nuts. You just are brain-washed to dismiss it as nonsense.
No brain washing needed. Actually if anything we are brainwashed to believe in aliens by the countless movies.
No brain washing needed? Lol. If the powerful people of the world want us to believe in something even though it is a disgusting lie they will brain-wash the public to reach their goal.
You'd be surprised to know that Sci-Fi actually depicts the truth but calls it fiction. In fact, scientists even lie when they deem it necessary.
Read:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy2.htm
Actually people are brainwashed to believe in aliens that may visit them. Christians are taught about aliens like angels (like gabriel, Michael....) satan... while Hindus Devas, Gandharvas......
So who is brain-washed to believe aliens may visit them? When people from NATO claim that aliens exist then I'm interested and you should be also.
Excerpt from page:
Command Sergeant Major Robert Dean worked at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters from 1963-1967, and during this time was stationed in the Operations Center with a Cosmic Top Secret clearance. "He claims to have viewed a secret NATO study that was commissioned to analyze the threat posed by UFOs to NATO operations in Eastern Europe", reports Dr. Michael Salla, who is a scholarly researcher on Extraterrestrial life and Earthbound human political implications, in the article entitled "Extraterrestrials among Us", Exopolitics Journal, Vol 1:4 (October 2006): 284-300.
Dr. Michael Salla further reports in an interview documented by Bob Hieronimus, “Transcript of Interview with Bob Dean, March 24, 1996 that Major Dean said:
"There was a human group that looked so much like us that that really drove the admirals and the generals crazy because they determined that these people, and they had seen them repeatedly, they had had contact with them…. These people looked so much like us they could sit next to you on a plane or in a restaurant and you'd never know the difference. And being military and being primarily paranoid, that bothered the generals and the admirals a little bit. That the fact that these intelligent entities could be involved with us, walking up and down the corridors of SHAPE [Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe], walking down the corridors of the Pentagon. My God, it even dawned on a couple of them that these guys could even be in the White House! Of course, as I said, being paranoid in those years it really shook things up a little bit."
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/F … 01711.html
The US government takes UFOs and aliens rather seriously:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news … rt-1141567Shall I conclude it - "nonsense"!
This might help you "He claims to have viewed a secret NATO study"
Instead wasting your time on conspiracy sites to hook up utter nonsense, why can't you use your time to think about what is said in these sites or what all can occur in our universe, or for some meaningful purpose?
I am waiting with baited breath for a close encounter of the Furred Kind.
Well, I'm just going by what Francis Crick, the designer of the DNA helix. Alien doesn't necessary mean extra-terrestrial beings but some sort of bacteria that hitched a ride to earth through a comet, it is surmised.
Francis Crick didn't design "DNA", he surmised the design which was later proved. If you go by Crick take his advice, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children", for he said there is a possibility and didn't say it was so. And bacterial/viral gene contaminating human wouldn't make it alien nor "designed" and mitochondrial DNA is supposed to be bacterial which got into a eukaryote cell at some time of its evolution. (Apes have 24 while humans have only 23 pairs of chromosome)
And only 1.5% of human genes in the genome account of which code for proteins. And there is no evidence that the remaining 98.5% is similar to apes.
Interestingly enough...
"Jonathan Marks, (department of anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) has pointed out the often-overlooked problem with this “similarity” line of thinking.
Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases—A,G,C, and T—only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical (2000, p. B-7)
Moreover, the genetic comparison is misleading because it ignores qualitative differences among genomes.... Thus, even among such close relatives as human and chimpanzee, we find that the chimp’s genome is estimated to be about 10 percent larger than the human’s; that one human chromosome contains a fusion of two small chimpanzee chromosomes; and that the tips of each chimpanzee chromosome contain a DNA sequence that is not present in humans (B-7, emp. added)."
The human sequencing was only recently decoded so the 98% claim is very outdated.
Sources:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte … ticle=1038
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … chimp.htmlIs it that you are conveniently using the scientific knowledge, achieved by humans, and marrying that science with your belief in a god? To what ends? To convince others that you are "right," or to prove atheism is wrong?
Science could go a long way to help any of us to understand the world we live in. But it can do nothing to substantiate the existence of a god.
Beliefs can go a long way to convincing those that want to believe, that a god exists. Yet it does nothing to help us understand our world.What has my comment got to do with my belief in God?
Your comment, specifically, nothing that I can see.... and I was not addressing that.
I was addressing your mixing up science with much of what you have written in the past..... seemingly disconnected with anything scientific, mere fanciful religious stuff, in my estimation..... Of course this is only my own impression, others (yourself included) will most likely disagree.... but I have made my point.
And only the genes that code for proteins are important because it is the proteins and enzymes that decide the individual.
This is what happens when you simply quote from apologetic sites.
The difference is 4%(comprising ∼35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.). If you take any closely related genus you will get similar difference. If you take two closely related species the difference will be less and if you take two families the difference will be more. And it is not simply the ATCG that matters, but the codones and the amino acid it represent. Again that alone is not enough, the protein to which the gene code is the most important.
The difference and similarity is expected just like in any two genus in the same family.And so what you are saying is that the remaining "junk DNA" have no significant purpose? On the "New Scientist" web page, it is "junk" DNA that makes us what we are because plays a critical role in determining whether genes are active or not and how much of a particular protein gets churned out. It is because of that that makes people individuals.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … dU-lvmLCdY
"A number of research reports show how large differences in gene expression are commonly observed between humans and chimps for many genes that both species share, particularly in those associated with brain activity.1, 2"
References
Khaitovich, P. et al. 2005. Parallel patterns of evolution in the genomes and transcriptomes of humans and chimpanzees. Science. 309 (5742): 1850-1854.
Konopka, G. et al. 2012. Human-Specific Transcriptional Networks in the Brain. Neuron. 75 (4): 601-617.
The 4% difference is again referring to protein making and not how protein is regulated. This is a huge difference. How much do you think our "junk" DNA is related to a chimp?Not all but a few. And it is precisely because they do not do anything they are called junk DNA. A large number of what was thought of as junk DNA is no longer junk, but found to have regulatory role, but that role is contingent upon the proteins that get "attached" on theses genes, feedback. But that is beside the point.
Isn't that obvious? The major difference between a chimp and a human is humans increased brain capacity that humans have more abstract thought and language, so naturally that part of human's are more developed.
This I didn't understand, protein is regulated? It is protein that makes up the body and form enzymes that regulate body and help in production of chemicals. It is ultimately through the production of proteins that all function of the body is regulated.
Approximately 4%, for
1) Random sampling, if a large number of portions have 4% difference then the entire thing have 4 % difference, simple statistics.
2) The anatomy and behaviour of chimps and humans are similar
3) The 4% include nucleotides.That is absolute nonsense. There is no such thing as junk DNA:
"For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ … dna-encode
And it is only the protein making genes of humans that were compared with chimps. In other words, a very small percentage of our genes. You cannot assume that the "junk DNA" is closely related to the chimp.
I think it's got to do with the difference in "junk DNA". In fact, scientific studies suggest that "junk DNA" is responsible for language:
JUNK DNA- May Not Be Junk After All
(Quoted from Gene exchange no 2, 1996)
In another reminder that we may not understand the full ramifications of genetic engineering, Science magazine recently reported new work on the function of genetic material*. Scientists have long been puzzled by the fact that fully 97% of the DNA in human cells does not code for proteins and appears to consist of meaningless sequences. The possibility that this apparently useless DNA has some as yet unknown function continues to tantalize scientists.
The Science article reports on a paper suggesting that the non-coding 97% of the DNA, commonly referred to as junk DNA, might have a function. The authors of the paper employed linguistic tests to analyze junk DNA and discovered striking similarities to ordinary language. The scientists interpret those similarities as suggestions that there might be messages in the junk sequences, although its anyone s guess as to how the language might work. * F. Flam, Hints of a language in junk DNA, Science 266:1320, 1994.
http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm#JUNK
That is the function of non coding DNA. To regulate how protein is used not make it. I'm not saying that DNA is not made of proteins in the first place.
Can you give me your sources, please?The most obvious answer to all of your rhetoric is that each species of each family of each order in the plant, animal and insect world has adapted to is habitat and surroundings. Each organ of the body has adapted, each leaf, each branch, each flower/method of reproduction, has learned the best way to survive in the circumstances. We humans are no different in that respect. We have in fact been extremely skilled in adapting to different circumstances and habitats, and this has contributed to our survival rate.
Taken to the extreme, this is likely to be the demise of our species, if we continue to dominate the world to the exclusion of many other species.
I see one of the faults of christian thinking as being that we humans are "God's Gift To The World," and superior to everything else. Such arrogance and totally false. It is not even using the brains we have to the best of advantage. When we join with the world and work along with it in harmony, then we might survive. Otherwise we will be seen as the "Junk" species!Crazy stuff if you ask me. What a waste of scientific minds! As if we don't have enough challenges to our existence in this world, without inventing more.
Those made up pictures of dinosaurs with long necks....... if such necks existed at all, it was in response to circumstantial need. For example, if that animal began its evolutionary life in the sea, and normally walked on the bottom of the sea, its head could be lifted above the surface in order to breathe, then lowered to the bottom again for browsing. (Only a suggestion here, to illustrate my reasoning.)
The sort of picture the dream-up artists paint shows a completely unbalanced animal, fit to scare the movie-time audience but nothing else.
Call me a skeptic? Yeah!.... a prehistoric one, lol.They would seem impossible if we didn't have the fossil evidence. With regards to the long necks, just look at the giraffe.
OHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I see we have a genuine one of those, I thought people only watched that show as a comedy. Aside from everything else if the scientific basis of the program you are watching is presented by a man who has this hairstyle you should be cautious
At least Ancient Aliens actually presents history and its mysteries before applying its insanity as an explanation. Hell, I remember there being an entire 8-minute stretch of the show on the Yonaguni Monument without any mention of aliens or super-futuristic technology, but rather just explaining what's there and how old it might be.
Never Judge a Book by its Cover. He might be a future President.
Epic fail.
What doesn't conform to your way of thinking must be wrong, hey? You are all knowing. You ridiculing me does not make you right. It's a common tactic.
Actually, the term Elohim can be used as singular or plural. Just like the word Moose can be either singular or plural
And if you are stating that the sons of Elohim are sons of Gods and thus aliens, then you are acknowledging that there are other Gods. If this is the case, wouldn't this contradict the Christian principle that there is only one God?Oh, then how come Elohim said, "Let US make man in our image"? Clearly the writers meant Elohim as a plural.
Aliens aren't gods. That was the perception of people who mingled with them.
Rad Man, I must remind you that 9 months ago you were told "not to be childish," so hope my remarks here will not be treated the same way.
What?
Say What?
Why would God allow extra-terrestrials to mess with our DNA?
Are you certain?
Should have just stopped ET.
Yes. Go look it up.
Google Sumerian texts alien genetic experiments.
Because both God and Satan have a say in earth's affairs.
Why should I not be?
Are we supposed to be seeing some kind of logic here? I mean, if this "God" is god of the Universe, i.e., of this earthly planet and every other planet/galaxy/solar system, etc., yet somehow his security set-up allows an alien through the gates, how do you account for this anomaly?
It also beggars the imagination (even intellect) that the genetic materials of an alien could co-mingle with out human genes and influence our lovely lives of sin.
Maybe Valdemort is real, not just a figment of J.K. Rowling's mind.Aliens are from Satan. Satan and God are co-creators of the universe. After all, isn't it made of opposites like an atom? Everything therefore is touched by evil and good accept the places where God and Satan come from, which are spiritual realms. No evil is in heaven and no good is in hell. The physical world is different and don't we live in it? There is a constant war between good and evil and only Jesus tips the scales for His defeated sin thus redeems us. Whatever God does, Satan counters it. Whatever Satan does, God counters it. Therefore in response to our corrupted nature, God sent Jesus.
Many fall into the mistake of underestimating Satan's power. He is an intruder of this earth. So why did God allow it? It is not something we can fathom. All I know is that without suffering and the knowledge of evil, I would not love Him the way I do. It is impossible to know God without knowing Satan.
Why does it boggle the mine to believe in alien genetic experiments? Because it doesn't fit with your brain-washed view of things? If you were taught as a child that aliens experimented with human genes you'd believe it today.Sounds like the story of your life, Claire!
I wasn't taught as a child that aliens genetically modified us. Hardly brain-washing. If I was a brain-washed Christian then no way would I even be entertaining the ancient aliens theory.
Ok, Claire, then do we conclude that your brand of personal religion is not christian? That you don't adhere to the entire biblical account upon which christianity bases its teachings?
Presumably, then, your religion is a composite of various studies which you personally have pursued over several years? When you write posts, it sounds like you are authoritative, that you know precisely what we need to know for our spiritual enlightenment. Is that the case? What in fact is your authority?
Why? I was taught as a child that God exist, but I matured and understand that's not the case, the same would have happened with alien genetic tampering.
It's because theism is mainstream and not alien genetic experiments. We hear about God all the time so it becomes even remotely plausible. Alien genetic experiments, on the other hand, is definitely not accepted by the majority and unfairly enough seems to be a taboo subject.
That doesn't boggle the mind at all, what does boggle the mind are your hilariously bizarre beliefs that read more like a C rated sci-fi flick than anything else.
Is that what you were taught? No one else was.ATM, you have a masterful way of nesting comment quotes within quotes. I can get the single quote easily, but how do you get that nesting? It often helps to clarify one's responses by doing it the way you do.
Not quite sure what you mean, but I simply use quote tags that we can access using the "Formatting" button below.
I'm so sorry, Claire, I tried and I tried and I tried, but I simply could not find a word or phrase over and above 'absurd' that could even come close to describing that remark.
What intellectual comments do you add to this forum but make jabs at others? It indicates insecurity. Aren't you bored by now corresponding with Christians?
Are you saying your comments are intellectual?
Don't turn this on me now. What comments of yours are intellectual?
If God is perfect and a God of love, then how does one perfect being create another perfect being like Lucifer and then turn around and allow Lucifer to sin near his very throne room?
After he ejects Lucifer he decides to create a lesser world with lesser beings only to throw Lucifer down to earth?
These are just one of the religions out there. Before Abraham believed in a deity other people believed in a deity or deities. None of them have proven themselves to exist. With the advent of the internet, the media and the ease at which we communicate bottom line, no evidence has been given that an afterlife even exists. We only dream about it because we're alive, not because it is.That Genesis story is nonsense. It's just another pagan story lifted from the Sumerian Text. If God had created Lucifer I'd tell Him to go take a hike. I won't worship something like that. As for deities, they were extra-terrestrials not supernatural gods. For example, Elohim means gods, not God. God is a spirit while Moses interacted with a physical being.
Exodus 33:11
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
Exodus 33:18-23
18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”
19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”
21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 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. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
If one doesn't know Jesus then there would not be overwhelmingly convincing evidence of His existence. Since Jesus rose from the dead Christians can be bold to say there is life after dead.I'm aware of that. It's not the only story. The Flood and Creation we're also taken from other texts like the Epic of Gilgamesh. So rightly named an 'epic' as opposed to be taken as literal fact preceded the Jewish Codex by 2-3000 years.
There is only evidence if you 'believe' which puts you in a position of vulnerability to any smart insane religious leader out there. I will not be tricked. There is no evidence of Jesus existence. And Jesus is the only person to apparently have risen from the dead but taken more than 2000 years to make an appearance. How many generations have to go by until they finally grow up? Every generation terrorizes the next generation about this stuff.
It's interesting how with the advent of the internet while its documented how many religious people there are 'standing up for their faith' and getting pats on the backs...there are no recorded miracles or anything REAL. Did they just disappear? And why it is to bad to ask for proof? Since religion is the one pushing itself compelled by 'something' within them to shove the gospel in your face? I want the truth, not more crap. If this is an offense to a Creator (which I doubt because there is no god, and mainly those who call themselves his people) who expects you to believe without question, then religion might as well be a dictatorship. I see no difference between religion and cults.No evidence for Jesus? There may not be evidence He is the son of God but He is an historical person. Jesus wasn't the only one to be risen from the dead. We have Lazarus...
What do you mean taking more than 2000 years to make an appearance? Don't pain the whole of Christianity with the same brush. Any form of bullying and threats from Christians goes against what Jesus taught.
It depends what kind of miracle you are looking for. Miracles were needed during Paul's time for Christianity to attract the gentiles. Christianity has established so we don't get converts that way. Miracles come in other forms. Life itself is a miracle. If you truly want the truth you'll find it. Pray to God to reveal His truth and don't expect to see the lame just start walking just to believe.
Any god who wants worship without critical thinking when it is warranted does not deserve to be worshiped. If I can't ask questions, and I still do today, then goodbye Christianity. Jesus gives us all the freedom in the world to allow ourselves to grow.The only questions allowed by christianity are those that assume that 'god' is real. And those that respect their faith as being 'real'. A miracle is something for good people not those your belief system considers bad. If anything your belief system relies on 'good' people gaining everything in the end, and that when bad people seem blessed, your deity is actually making it so that in anyone your belief system considers bad will fall in the end. Yes I will pin all of a Christianity, and not just Christianity, all of monotheistic religions who's deity forgot to abolish slavery, consider women as equals and who apparently after making his own creation had no clue how to handle 'sin' considering your deity's track record with Lucifer.
If your deity is all powerful, then who are you to say if it does or doesn't deserve to be worshipped? Right there you just limited your deity and all that tells me is that you arent even convinced its real.
A historical person who is the son of god? Does anyone really sit down and listen to themselves think when they make a proclamation of that kind? Right now you and all those who believe in god starting with the person who wrote this entire thread are bullying and terrorizing other people and you say 'that is against' what Jesus taught when you are doing it anyway. And only until the majority correct you will you understand, but do you have capability to correct yourself and stand down and show by example what 'turn the other cheek' and 'wipe the dust off your feet' really is?
That is not something Christians have the power to actually to say to themselves, only to other people in an attempt to encourage them to keep preaching a 'good' news' to people who don't find it so good that they end up having to be slaves to another master as opposed to believing in themselves and their own capabilities.Who's to say miracles only happen to those within Christianity? Did Jesus not perform miracles and healing to the gentiles? No one "falls" just for being a non believer. Did not Jesus treat woman as equals? Genesis is pagan and thus God never created Satan. How can He? Nothing evil can come from Him. If God created Satan out of argument's sake then I would not have anything to do with Him.
God is not the only powerful deity. There is Satan and Jesus dying for us to save us from Satan displays the greatest act of love. That is why He deserves to be worshiped. I'm more than a thousand percent sure of His existence.
I'm the person who started this thread. Justrefresh my memory again about the bullying part? I just said that it is irrational to believe that God doesn't exist just because there is suffering.
Give me an example in the context of this thread what would be turning the other cheek and wiping the dust off one's feet?Do you think Satan has always existed as you think God has? Are those the only deities? Does believing in at least two deities make you a pagan?
Paganism has traditionally been associated with polytheism, or worship of multiple (usually way more than two) 'gods.'
No, Satan is a created being and his power is not equal to God's.Knowing her, probably not. I don't usually read her posts, I just saw yours.
Claire's views are a bit different from yours Chris. Including the idea that aliens may live among us. But I really think his question was geared towards her and not typical Christian views in general. However, Jews do find the Christian Satan lore to be offensive in that his power is depicted as being quite close to God's, though obviously not on par.
Even within Christianity there is no uniform agreement on the devil and what he can and cannot actually do. But I get your point.
Unfortunately, that is part of the problems that we fact as Christians, Chris. We do not agree on whether or not the devil exists and what he can or cannot do. We also do not agree on what God does or doesn't do, yet a lot of Christians expect and demand that others accept our beliefs in God. Part of why some Christians aren't taken as seriously by atheists as others is not only do we disagree on these things, but some Christians will attack the beliefs of other Christians.
And then you have Islam and all the other religions who worship god(s).
Judging from the majority of atheists I have dealt with, I doubt that has much bearing on it one way or the other. I'm sure there are some for whom that is a serious issue, but it seems to me that simply believing in God at all is cause for strife in their eyes.
This has been impressed on me recently when not one but two people for whom I have respect have made it pretty clear that there is, I won't say no reciprocity but certainly limited, and that is because the fact that I hold there to be an ultimate truth and that truth holds for everyone is in and of itself a lack of respect for them. It doesn't matter what I say, how I say it, in what context, that all goes away because I hold there to be a truth that is not relative, so therefor I am a narrow-minded person, unable to see beyond their own nose. Oh yeah, and lacking in respect for them, again regardless of what I actually say or in what context.
I agree and disagree with you there, Chris. That last bit might be off somewhat. It's not just because you believe in an ultimate truth. It's because of the irrationality of believing in it based off of something you can't see, and because religious irrationality seems like the worst kind to many people. I like for one like everyone including myself to look at things rationally all the time, but I don't get my hopes up because it seems people like to do otherwise. But most people can deal with an irrational reason for something like disliking a sports team. However, when it comes to people, their livelihood, worth, "eternity," and things of that nature, it becomes much less acceptable for certain people.
Know that I am not trying to talk down to you in any way at all. But to many atheists who ponder things like the meaning of life and what have you, you have no good or valid reason to believe in an absolute truth such as the one that you do. You cling to looking at life a certain way, and that's because it fits your belief system. I'm not discrediting your sincerity, character, or anything else, it is important to me that you know I am not attacking you personally, Chris. I'm simply trying to help you understand. It's not that you believe in an ultimate truth. It's more about how you got there and how black and white it seems when looking at how things actually work and happen in the real world.
I know that you have experienced and suffered much. In some ways I couldn't comprehend. But when you really try to look at people in their individual lives and situations, that as much as you may want there to be an absolute truth the way it exists in Christianity, life just doesn't seem to support that.
I think the term narrow-minded is misleading, anyway. Everyone's narrow-minded in some form or fashion. Otherwise there'd be chaos. Anyway, that's just my two cents, Chris.I appreciate what you wrote. Thank you.
The "irrationality" argument has, of course, been put forth often enough and in fact I don't discount that it is irrational by many people's standards. I've actually attempted to discus rationality in this context but, as you so saliently point out, perceived religious irrationality, no matter how it manifests itself, is "the worst kind" and within the context of the internet gets flamed pretty regularly. The desire for rationality is, I think, pretty common to most people although some people only apply it to the immediate and some people want to construct a rational system for the entire universe. In fact many theologians are exactly that second kind of person, they want to understand things and put them in a rational system. The assumption that many atheists seem to make (at least judging by what I've read in the posts) is that a person who is "irrational" about religion is therefor irrational about most or all other things. And many of them go further in assuming that an irrational person is also an unintelligent one and for that reason condescending speech is justified.
What I'm saying is that many people who don't accept the rationality of belief can behave irrationally in their reactions to it. (Present company excepted.)
I appreciate that you are not talking down to me and in fact your tone is markedly different from that of those who I was talking about. You have phrased it in general terms ("it becomes much less acceptable for certain people") while at least one put it in starkly personal terms (I forget the exact wording, but something to the extent of "at no time have you respected me by saying that your truth is as relative as mine.") I actually don't have such a problem with them feeling that way, as people tend to forget I wasn't always a Christian and just as I, as a father, can remember what it was like to be twenty and try to let my twenty-year-old live his life, so I as a Christian can remember how I thought and felt when I wasn't a Christian try to make clear that I do respect other people and where they are. But this particular person coupled (indirectly) that statement with assertions that I am unable to comprehend, let alone respect, different points of view. I'm sorry they feel that way, that was certainly never my intention, but by the same token I can't help feeling sandbagged when what I thought was a serious debate u-turned to "me vs. you, and you suck."
I agree that narrow-mindedness is misleading because we do all have our blind spots and narrow opinions on different things.
We've all suffered. I know I didn't handle it very well in the early days and have appreciated the support that most people have shown here in the forums, but I'm hardly alone. Although I don't generally like to compare tragedies, and I certainly don't have first-hand details, there are a couple of people here who I know have suffered horribly in ways that I cannot imagine. I wish that it wasn't so, and I'm sorry. I wish I could turn back the clock and prevent the bad things from happening. I'm not really a special case. But thank you very much.
You and I don't talk very often but I always enjoy our conversations.
The issue here isn't whether or not there is an ultimate truth that the atheists have an issue with you (or other Christians for that matter), Chris. We all know that there is an ultimate truth. What we do NOT know for certain is what that ultimate truth is. Some of the primary atheists that comment here (no need for names, you should know which ones I am referring to) even agree that we do not know that ultimate truth. We know what we believe (or don't believe) as it relates to God. The issue (from the outside looking at your various arguments with the atheists) that they have with you (and other Christians) is that you (despite your comments that you know you could be wrong) still assert your belief as the ultimate truth instead of simply being what you believe. In the process, you (and others) continually slip in some statement or another that is viewed by the atheists as being insulting. Yes, I know this goes both ways as the atheists make statements that you find insulting and offensive to you as well (I do not deny this). But there is a difference between saying "This is what I believe to be true" and saying "This is absolutely true", especially when it comes to religious discussion. The atheists (Some of them rather) have a ton of respect for you (from what I see) and this is why they engage you with less snark than they do others, but there are times you slip into a snarky stage (understandably) yourself and they follow you there.
Edit** In relation to what we were discussing earlier when we look at ultimate truth, Christians cannot agree on what that ultimate truth is but a majority of us push our own ultimate truth and dismiss other ultimate truths (even amongst each other) as absurdly against whatever doctrine is followedAn excellent point, and one that distinguishes honest believers from dishonest believers.
Most Christians agree on the ultimate truth, that truth being God and His son, Jesus Christ. There are many differences on a lot of other things but you cannot be a Christian and not believe in Jesus, it's exactly that simple. Many non-believers focus on the arguments over smaller things (which many believers certainly do ourselves no favors by engaging in.)
I agree with you. it is these differences of belief Especially with doctrine that causes the specific accusations of who is and is not Christian even if we all agree on Christ.
Yes, smaller things like God and Jesus Christ are just myths.
Could this be more truthfully put as "Yes, I see smaller things like God and Jesus Christ as just myths."
This then becomes an acceptable, personal opinion which it is hard to argue, except from another personal opinion.I haven't read everything you have ever written .... but I like everything that I have read.. that you have posted. I've always liked your attitude! You seem to practice what you preach.
The point was that atheists do not just look at the smaller things of religions, they look at the main points that validate the religion and find them seriously wanting.
The depth of your cleverness never ceases to amaze me.
"the Ultimate Truth," ok..... for christians. But not the Ultimate Truth for muslims.
Can each of us perceive the "Ultimate Truth" for our self and both be right?
That, of course, would make it invalid, because "Ultimate" is like "Unique." They are indivisible, complete.
So.... logically speaking, we are not trying to focus on the infinite quality. We are trying to learn how to accept each other's point of view comfortably, feeling un-threatened, warmly and with love, i.e., all having equal needs, equal rights, equal validity in our points of view. Do you need to be christian, or muslim, or hindu, or pagan, whatever.... to accept this?
We are all human. We all have this wonderful gift of discernment.
However, to address a different point, God either is or He isn't. If He is, then the assertion that "this is absolutely true" is the only way you can go. God's existence is not a relative thing. To say that believing in God's existence is "true for me but not necessarily for you" is not a correct statement, the God of the Bible does not allow for that.
This is not the same as attempting to declare some sort of Christian version of Shari'ah law. There's a point that a lot of people miss, which is that it's about a relationship with God, not a capitulation to my belief system. For people who don't know God, I can understand why they might not differentiate, but people who do know God should also know the difference.Correct.. God either is or he isn't. But the thing I was talking about is that we do not have the absolute answer one way or the other and as such, it is equally dishonest for both believers and nonbelievers to push an absolute truth that has not been established yet.
Fair enough, my friendIf He was, we would ALL know and accept it.
But, we already know that's pure baloney.Why? In the Old Testament, not all the Jews "knew and accepted" that God existed even though they saw the miracles.
And of course by "we" you mean you and people who already think like you. I know you like to think you're all-inclusive in little statements like that, which you are if you consider all-inclusiveness in the same way the medieval church or shari'ah kingdoms consider all-inclusiveness.So what? There are billions of people who have never seen any miracles, most likely because miracles don't exist.
No, that's "we" in the sense of those who know your claims are pure baloney. They are here on these forums telling you that.Sorry, I stand corrected. By "we" you mean "you."
Good to know!
Satan and God have always existed and they are the only supreme beings. Pagans do not only believe in two powerful beings. They believe must more than that and they worship mother earth and all that nonsense. So I am not pagan.
The argument against God from perfection is a good one, I think.
Define perfection as "without flaw" and it's hard to see how God, who is allegedly perfect, could produce our world.He did not create our world in the shape it's in now. He created an eden... he gave man free will and man chose to sin. When sin entered the world, it became what it is now. He loves mankind and offers the opportunity for us to be with Him in Heaven one day. We learn to survive the tragedies, overcome the challenges and revel in the glorious moments. It's not perfect, but I would think most of us would prefer the opportunity to experience it than not.
Because the monotheistic God you are no doubt referring to is by definition omnibenevolent.
If he is omnibenevolent and has the power to stop suffering (he is omnipotent) then there wouldn't be suffering.
Just an argument through definitions.Suffering does not say anything about the existence of God. The existence of suffering, however, could be seen as evidence of the non-existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God. If God is omnipotent, then He has chosen to allow suffering. But if God is good, then why would he allow it? So it seems that he is either not omnipotent, not good, or not either one. I recently wrote a hub about this topic, but since I am not supposed to post links to my own hub here, and I don't have time to rewrite it, I'll leave it at that . . .
Suffering can be seen as the existence of Satan which most of the world has chosen to follow directly or indirectly. Even those who know Satan slip up at times giving him leverage until we repentant. And since God has given us free will to choose, people are actually responsible for suffering not God. If God had to strike down all sinners it wouldn't work. Look at the Noah story. There will always be people who will commit egregious acts for the first time.
What can be done is to send His son to take on the suffering and clean us of our sins should we repent. THAT disables evil and thus suffering decreases because those inspired by the Holy Spirit spread powerful good. Unfortunately, there will never come a day when we know longer sin on this earth. That is why Jesus took on our sin. Choosing to die for one's people and going to hell on their behalf does not sound like a malevolent god.
Both Satan and God have a say in the affairs of the world but Satan has the most say.
Saying God doesn't exist is like saying we don't exist. God is the ground of the world of whom we are all offshoots. So in a sense we are all part of God along with everything there is.
Suffering is identical to well-being. They are not different in nature, they are only different in digree. One can't exist without the other, because they are the same. This polarity is in the nature of everything in the universe.I am an atheist, and I would never say that god does not exist because there is suffering. I cannot fully explain why I do not believe in god. It just feels right.
No... that's never good in an argument of logic.
I think that you are right in that one cannot simply come to that conclusion based on suffering alone. It is perfectly possible for there to be a form of transcendental intelligence out there that does observe, but it would be more logical because there is suffering that it is impersonal.
After observing the Bible (OT and NT, alike), it becomes clear that that God couldn't possibly exist as it is written, because if he does, then maltheists would be more accurate in His description than anyone else. There are some clear inconsistencies for a God that supposedly "loves his children" and does not "wish for them to perish." However, most of these inconsistencies (but not all) won't apply to you because you conveniently deny that the account of God in the OT is accurate.It's not out of convenience that most of the OT's portrayal of God is wrong. Just look at Jesus and how He behaved. Now tell me, is it similar to how God behaved in the OT?
Did your Jesus ever say that the OT was a incorrect portrayal of his father/God? If anything, he makes number of references to certain things that were stated in the OT. If he had come to disprove the OT's accuracy, I'm certain he wouldn't have said things like:
Matthew 5:17
[ The Fulfillment of the Law ] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Some of Jesus' "Woes of the Pharisees" sounds like what you can find a different prophet declaring in the book of Amos. But, one thing that Jesus' urged the crowd to do was to obey everything that the Pharisees and Sadducees taught them.
"
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you... "
Doesn't sound to me like he said anything to prove your point.
It's possible that the disconnect actually comes from the other world views/religions that were likely influencing that area. You have to consider there'd be outside influences when there was a 400 year gap between the OT and the NT. (Did you ever think about how magi, who are supposed to be evil, who are diviners, are a part of Jesus' early life story?). I think Jesus was trying to convince people that there was a connection between him and what was "prophesied" in the OT. Also, there were mystical ideas and others that were introduced into his ideologies that were less Barbaric in nature, which make the NT seem much more pleasant in nature than the OT. That's a theory, at least.
But the NT still has its own ugliness. Jesus has the "throw away that which I don't find useful" mentality, as is illustrated in the fig tree parable.
Luke 13:6-9 (NIV)
"6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”
Are human "souls" as disposable as a barren tree?
He discourages critical thought.
"29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”" That's basically the definition of being gullible.
Honestly, though, the NT has some pleasantries. But there's no evidence that Jesus ever claimed that the OT didn't depict God the Father correctly. So how do you support your conclusions? (Besides the fact that Jesus changed the "eye for an eye" to the "turn the other cheek" thing.)Jesus did not come to earth to make His own rules. He came to correct the wrong perceptions the Jews had of God's law. For example, Jesus did not say the Ten Commandments should no longer be heeded but He fulfilled the law by condensing it into two:
Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
What really did Jesus mean by fulfill? Here are some examples:
Matt 8:17 “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.”
Matt 21:4-5 “All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.’“
Matt 26:56 “But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
It's pretty obvious that Jesus didn't mean such Jewish laws like not eating swine as being what He had to fulfill.
But you must finish the verse:
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
The Pharisees knew the right things to say in public and how they adhered to religious practices but they were hypocrites. So Jesus is not telling the people to behave like them only to adhere to the correct religious practices. Think of some pastors today. They read from the Bible quoting Jesus yet privately they lead sinful lives.
That's a very interesting point about the magi. They were occultists but visited Jesus under false pretenses; obviously arriving on Herod's behalf. I think they couldn't have been so naive to think Herod actually wanted to worship Jesus considering what a monster he was.
Who's to say that the magi didn't felt the presence of God once they saw Jesus? Paul converted on the spot once He was visited by Jesus.
And, yes, Jesus did illustrate the connection between Him and what was prophesied about Him in the OT.
Are human "souls" as disposable as a barren tree?
With every action Jesus did there was always a meaning behind it.
Here's an excellent analysis:
"We plant apple trees because we want apples, peach trees because we want peaches, orange trees because we want oranges, and fig trees because we want figs. We might as well ask what good is an apple tree that doesn't produce apples? You might as well cut it down. Or curse it, as Jesus did the fig tree (Matthew 21:18-19).
How did Jesus know the fig tree was barren? Because the leaves and the fruit typically appear at about the same time. To see a fig tree covered with leaves but with no fruit meant that it was barren.
Three insights will help us understand this story. First, in the Old Testament the fig tree often stood as a symbol for the nation of Israel (Jeremiah 8:13; Hosea 9:10). Second, we also need to observe that the cursing of the fig tree occurs on Monday of Jesus's Passion Week, four days before his crucifixion. Third, this story is placed next to the story of Jesus cleansing the temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 21:12-17). The money lenders had turned the Lord's house into a den of thieves. They were profiteers who exchanged foreign currency and also sold the animals that worshipers from distant towns would buy to sacrifice before the Lord. By shrewd marketing they could charge exorbitant rates and make a killing off the pilgrims who came to worship. The whole scene angered our Lord because he knew that the temple should be a house of prayer for all nations.
Cursing the fig tree was Jesus's way of saying that the whole nation had become spiritually barren before the Lord. They had the form of religion but not the reality. They knew the right words to say, but their hearts were far from God."
28“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30I tell you the truth, this generatione will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
So you should see from the above verse that Jesus was using a fig tree as a parable.
It doesn't mean He expected people to believe in His divinity without evidence. He doesn't want people to believe in Him because they were taught as children to believe in Him when they actually have no idea if He truly is the son of God or not. A person who loves God and knows Jesus is the son of God may come a situation where they cannot see a way out of a problem or what to do next in their lives. They then turn to God and BELIEVE He will show them the way. I know Jesus is the son of God but I don't always know what to do in life. So I give it over to God even though I have not seen what to do.
It's fallacious to argue that the existence of suffering negates the existence of God. Anyone who has actually thought out an argument would not say that. However, the problem of suffering is an argument that questions, not disproves, the existence of a benevolent god. If you were to say something to the effect of "My God is not a benevolent being but a harsh and destructive creator" then the argument cannot be used against you. But when claiming that God is a kind and loving being who would not harm a fly the argument has credibility.
It is only a fallacy if we are speaking of an indifferent or cruel God--which is rarely the case.
Why did God allow Jesus to suffer and furthermore why does He allow Himself to suffer?
No.
The combination of sadism and masochism, in particular the deriving of pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting or submitting to physical or emotional abuse.
No sexual gratification involved.
God thought the worst suffering He can endure through Jesus was preferable to losing us to Satan. He'd rather take on the penalty of sin which is hell. This displays an extreme act of love for humanity.Sadomasochism is the giving and/or receiving of pleasure—often sexual —from acts involving the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation.
Often does not mean always!!
"God thought the worst suffering He can endure through Jesus was preferable to losing us to Satan."
Is your god impotent and incapable to lose to satan?? So if you are not sure that god can win, why take his side?God has won. Jesus defeated Satan. Evil cannot triumph over good. So, yes, I'm very sure God won.
Could you kindly elaborate? I'm not sure what point you're making. Thank you.
If God is not benevolent for allowing suffering then why does He allow Himself to suffer? It's because the worst suffering God could ever go through is preferable to losing us to Satan.
The answer to both sides of this question is far more simple than either side seems to realize. Freewill. God grants man freewill, otherwise as one or more have already pointed out, you could be "forced to worship". This idea of forced worship negates the entire premise of worship. Worship is freely given, just like true sacrifice is freely given or it is not a sacrifice it is a tribute forced onto the giver by some omnipotent power. Satan can not be destroyed out right for the same reason. The energy given of people's freewill in their unintentional, I hope, service makes it impossible for God to utterly destroy Satan as long as people use their free will to do acts and thoughts that edify that. I hope this has been helpful.
There will come a time when people won't have free will. They will be forced to worship Satan and thus Jesus can come to destroy him.
why would someone want to force people to worship satan?
To share in his power. They believe that with the appearance of the Anti-Chris, which they would want the public to be forced to worship, they will share in this reign.
If they already know about the Antichrist, then they would also already know that he will be defeated in a hilariously unfair curbstomp battle.
And they would also already know that Revelation is a work of fiction.They don't believe the "he will be defeated" part. They don't believe the devil is as Christians know him.
They very much believe in the mark of the beast system.
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz1Au48IySI
Wait. A requirement for Jesus to be able to destroy Satan is that he forces people to worship him? Jesus doesn't have the ability until then?
What happened to omnipotence?Sorry - my teaching as a youngster was that God, Jesus and the holy ghost were all one, yet separate in some unexplainable manner.
I was as well, but that is not the case. The latter two have an essence of God, but are not God.
That word "essence" is a beautiful word, Deepes! For me it conjures up the mystery.
As an example: In April I met up with old pals whom I had not seen for 50 years. You would think that all the different wrinkles, the change of paunch, the colour of hair (if there's any left!) and the harsh realities of life would have made them un-recognisable.
Yet, there was still the essence of their personalities shining through. Maybe it was a pattern of facial features, the combination of eyes, nose shape, or something which brought recognition. But I prefer to think of it as a unique spirit emanating from their deeper person. And here's me an atheist!....I would like to share an excerpt from the book of John Bunyan's "Vision of Heaven and Hell"
I recommend you to read it carefully. This book is free to download from http://spiritlessons.com/
Chapter 10: An Atheist in Hell
We had not gone much farther before I saw a vast number of tormenting demons. They were continually lashing a large company of wretched souls with knotted whips of ever burning steel. The tormented were roaring out with such loud cries that I thought it might have melted even cruelty itself into some pity. This made me say to one of the tormentors, “Oh, stop your whipping, and do not use such cruelty on those who are your fellow creatures, and whom you probably helped lead to all this misery.”
“No,” answered the tormentor very smoothly. “Though we are bad enough, no devil was as bad as them, nor were we guilty of such crimes as they were. We all know there is a God, although we hate Him; but these souls would never admit (until they came here) that there was such a Being.”
“Then these,” I said, “were atheists. They are wretched men, and tried to ruin me had not eternal grace prevented it.”
I had no sooner spoken, but one of the tormented wretches cried out mournfully , “Surely I know that voice. It must be John.”
I was amazed to hear my name mentioned; and therefore I answered, “Yes, I am John; but who are you?”
To this he replied, “I once knew you well upon the earth, and had almost persuaded you to be of my opinion. I am the author of that celebrated book entitled ‘Leviathan.’”
“What! The great Hobbs?” said I. “Are you come here?”
“Alas,” replied he, “I am that unhappy man indeed. But I am so far from being great that I am one of the most wretched persons in all these dirty territories. For now I know there is a God. But oh! I wish there were not, for I am sure He will have no mercy on me. Nor is there any reason that He should. I do confess I was His foe on earth, and now He is mine in hell. It was that proud confidence I had in my own wisdom that has so betrayed me.”
“Your case is miserable, and yet you admit that you suffer justly. For how industrious were you to persuade others and try to bring them to the same damnation. No one can know this better than I, as I was almost taken in your snare to perish forever.”
“It is that,” said he, “that stings me to the heart, to think how many will perish by my influence. I was afraid when I first heard your voice that you had also been cast into hell. Not that I wish any person happy, for it is my torment to think that anyone is happy while I am so miserable. But I did not want you to be cast into hell, because every soul that is brought here through my deceptions, increases my pains in hell.”
“But tell me,” I said, “for I want to know the truth. Did you indeed believe there was no God when you lived upon earth?
“At first I believed there was a God,” he answered, “but as I turned to sins which would lead me to His judgment, I hoped there was no God. For it is impossible to think there is a just God, and not also remember that He will punish those who disobey Him. But as I continued in my sins, and found that justice did not swiftly come, I then began to hope there was no God. From those hopes I began to frame ideas in my own mind that could justify what I hoped. My ideas framed a new system of the world’s origin which excluded from it the existence of God. At last I found myself so fond of these new theories that I decided to believe them and convince others that they were true. But before this,
I did find several checks in my own conscience. I felt that I could be wrong, but I ignored these warnings. Now I find that those checking thoughts that might have helped me then, are here the things that most of all torment me. I must confess that the love of sin hardened my heart against my Maker, and made me hate Him first, and then deny His being. Sin, that I so proudly embraced, has been the cursed cause of all this woe; it is the serpent that has stung my soul to death. For now I find, in spite of my vain philosophy, there is a God. I have also found that God will not be mocked, although it was my daily practice in the world to mock at heaven and all that is sacred, for this was the means that I found very successful to spread abroad my cursed ideas. For anyone that I could get to ridicule the truths of God, I looked upon as becoming one of my disciples. But now these thoughts are more tormenting to me than the sufferings I endure from these whips of burning steel.”why? Can you just drop your beliefs and choose to believe in something else at will? Chances are probably not. Why, then, would you expect us to with no evidence?
Because there is punishment awaiting for those who do not believe in God. Jesus is the only way for your salvation.
I love you.that punishment is no more than empty words, since you can't actually prove it exists - especially if you're entirely unaware of where the concept of Hell comes from, and the context in which Christian scripture mentions it.
What would it take for you to wake up tomorrow morning and become a Muslim, convinced that it was the one true religion? Impossible, right? Now why on earth would you assume that an atheist is any different in regards to YOUR religion, without any evidence to back it up whatsoever?Why would any God punish the astute, discerning and suspicious without suppling any evidence of his existence? Why would that be so important to him? You would think his first priority would be that we take care of each other. This is the logic that has lead me to understand that you are lying or very gullible or both. But suspect very gullible.
"Firstly, the souls of all the blessed are forever freed from everything that can make them miserable, which above all is sin. It was sin that brought misery into creation. The blessed God at first made all things happy, like Himself. Had not sin defaced the beauty of His workmanship, angels and men would have never known what is meant by misery. It was sin that threw the apostate angels down into hell, and spoiled the beauty of the lower world. It was sin that defaced God's image in man's soul, and made the ones who were to be the lords of creation into slaves of their own lust. It is sin which can also plunge them into an ocean of eternal misery from which is no redemption. It is an invaluable mercy that in this happy place all the saints are forever freed from sin through the blood of our Redeemer. In the earth below, the best and holiest of souls groan under the burden of corruption. Sin tries to cling to all that they do, and often leads them captive against their will. "Who shall deliver me?" has been the cry of many of God's faithful servants, who at the same time have been dear to Jesus. Sin is the heavy weight upon the saints while they live in their corrupted flesh. Therefore when they lay their bodies down, their souls are like a bird loosed from its cage, and with a heavenly joy they rise up to heaven. But here their warfare is at an end, and 'death is swallowed up in victory.' Below their souls were deformed and stained by sin, but here their bright souls by the ever-blessed Jesus are presented to the Father 'without spot or wrinkle.'
That has nothing to do with anything I said. You are simply preaching nonsense and appear unable to answer a simple question.
Nah, just joking, my bad sense of humour.
Good to see you. Hope all is well. It's 4.00am here now, and I woke up on hearing some kind of motor whining. That is strange, because all of my solar power system is turned off to conserve battery power at night. Must be either a ghost in the hut or a glitch in my brain. But it has had the pleasant result in me opening the computer to some interesting chatter.
Okay.. I gathered that you were joking, but still..LOLInteresting to see that Claire started this discussion, 2 months ago, and it has gone well over 2000 comments. We have seen some interesting new contributors.
Must get back to bed for another 2 hours.
Lucipher is the only way for salvation. Rest are all empty claims. You are mistaken and has chosen the wrong one. But don't worry god will NOT punish you, you know, he is not a judge and he loves you.
Do you know about Lucifer and the angels associated with him?. They are lost forever. They were the first that sinned, and had no tempter; and they were all at once cast down from heaven. Besides, the Son of God, the blessed Messiah by Whom alone salvation can be gained, did not take upon Himself the angelic nature. He left the apostate angels all to perish, and took upon Himself only the seed of Abraham. For this reason they have so much hatred against the sons of men, because it is a torment for them to see men made the heirs of heaven while they are doomed to hell."
BS ! You don't! You don't know the meaning of the word! All you want is the satisfaction of having converted us. That is your selfish ego working. Your Jesus has a reply to that.... "Get behind me Satan."
Actually Jonny, I think it's their ego not working. The subconscious is completely selfish and for some can delude a weak and gullible ego.
I still love you all guys. Do not forsake the salvation so easily. Do you know why Paul the apostle suffered a lot to preach the Gospel as much as he can? He was taken to the third heaven and seen unspeakable things and the things are ready for those who love God. This is a now or never opportunity. Do not forsake it.
Do you know what a Lost Soul Speaks about hell?
“Our miseries in this infernal dungeon are of two kinds: what we have lost, and what we suffer. I will first speak about what we have lost.
1. In this sad dark place of misery and sorrow, we have lost the presence of the ever blessed God. This is what makes this dungeon hell. Though we had lost a thousand worlds, it would not be as important as this one greatest loss. Could we but see the least glimpse of His favor here, we might be happy; but have lost it to our everlasting woe.
2. Here we have also lost the company of saints and angels, and instead have nothing but tormenting devils.
3. Here we have lost heaven, too, the center of blessedness. There is a deep gulf between us and heaven, so that we are shut out from it forever. Those everlasting gates that let the redeemed into heaven are now for ever shut against us.
4. To make our wretchedness far worse, we have lost the hope of ever obtaining a better condition. This makes us truly hopeless. Well may our hearts now break, since we are both without hope and help. This is what we have lost; and if we think of these things, it is enough to tear and gnaw upon our miserable souls forever. Yet, oh, that this were all that our torments were!"More BS. Continue believing what you will. It's all in your mind, make-believe, conjecture.
If all you can do is quote someone else's poetry, without attending to your own business in life, then don't you worry about me.
A common need of proselytizing christians is to look away from their own problems and concentrate on others instead. You don't know my needs, you don't know my person, my future. These matters are none of your business. Marketing seems to be your business, so you are obviously knowledgeable in the art of painting the picture according to your ulterior motives. But you cannot hoodwink me.
To do so would be totally dishonest with my self. You again, like other christians, use the term "believe in." That is the basis for every thing that goes on in your mind. You keep that for yourself.... fine.
I have passed through such an era in my life, when I too "believed." Because that was what other people were telling me I needed to do! Since I stopped bowing down to what others think I should do, my life is free to explore the huge, wide, wonderful world, while I have the opportunity to do so.
Soon, it will be too late. My body, mind and experiences of "life" will be gone, for ever. For eternity, just like other people I have known went finally from my life.... except for the beautiful memories I have of them.
The only reason you, like other christians, keep trying to "convert" people like myself, is that it gives you some sort of satisfaction. You desire to control me and my life. I don't try to control what you do or believe for your life. Just that you don't have any control over me now, regardless of whether you "believe in" some controlling god in your life.
I am free. If you are imprisoned, by your own mind, in a narrow, claustrophobic concept of a limiting, selfish, theoretical nonsense, that is not for me, thanks all the same. 100% rejected. Now you will declare me damned.... so be it.Jonnycomelately, this is actually a supportive comment to your response to what you saw as lack of sincerity with the "love" remark; well-put, succinct and passionate, something Christians are supposed to be recognized by, lol. As a suggestion, ignore clowns... keep up the fun!
All enjoy the benefit of light as fully as if no one else enjoyed it but themselves. If a multitude of persons drink of the same river none of them is able to exhaust it, even though each of them has the liberty of drinking as much as he can. So whoever enjoys God enjoys Him as much as he can contain, according to his capacity.
but you can't actually demonstrate that anything you're saying is true. You're a stranger on the internet. Why on earth should we listen to or believe you when all you have is an old book and your own baseless assertions with no substance?
I would like to share with you the words of an atheist:
At first I believed there was a God,” he answered, “but as I turned to sins which would lead me to His judgment, I hoped there was no God. For it is impossible to think there is a just God, and not also remember that He will punish those who disobey Him. But as I continued in my sins, and found that justice did not swiftly come, I then began to hope there was no God. From those hopes I began to frame ideas in my own mind that could justify what I hoped. My ideas framed a new system of the world’s origin which excluded from it the existence of God. At last I found myself so fond of these new theories that I decided to believe them and convince others that they were true. But before this, I did find several checks in my own conscience. I felt that I could be wrong, but I ignored these warnings. Now I find that those checking thoughts that might have helped me then, are here the things that most of all torment me. I must confess that the love of sin hardened my heart against my Maker, and made me hate Him first, and then deny His being. Sin, that I so proudly embraced, has been the cursed cause of all this woe; it is the serpent that has stung my soul to death. For now I find, in spite of my vain philosophy, there is a God. I have also found that God will not be mocked, although it was my daily practice in the world to mock at heaven and all that is sacred, for this was the means that I found very successful to spread abroad my cursed ideas. For anyone that I could get to ridicule the truths of God, I looked upon as becoming one of my disciples. But now these thoughts are more tormenting to me than the sufferings I endure from these whips of burning steel.”you get that's a work of fiction, correct? That it hasn't actually happened, and it came from someone's mind? I read a lot of fiction. That doesn't make it true. And if you want to gain credibility or respect, trying to appeal to emotion via fear is not the way to do it.
Still not scared enough to believe garbage. Sorry. Does it make you hard to post this stuff?
I mock god all the time. Guess I am gonna get it bad huh? “Doubtless it is the just reward of sin which they suffer, and which you will suffer also. For you, as well as they, have sinned against the ever blessed God, and for your sin you shall suffer the just vengeance of eternal fire. Nor is it any excuse to say you never doubted the being of a God; for though you knew there was God, yet you rebelled against Him. Therefore you shall be justly punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.”
Wow - and you are happy to worship a god that thinks not believing in it is a sin punishable by eternal torment?
Explain please.Demons will be punishing you.
This wretched soul had scarcely finished what he was saying when he was tormented again by a hellish demon, who told him to stop complaining. The demon said, “don't you know you have deserved it all? How often were you told of this before, but would not believe it? You laughed at those who warned you about hell. You were even so presumptuous as to dare Almighty justice to destroy you! How often you called on God to damn you. Do you complain that you are answered according to your wishes? What an unreasonable thing! You know that you had salvation offered you, and you refused it. How can you now complain of being damned? I have more reason to complain, for you had a long time in which repentance was offered you; but I was cast into hell as soon as I had sinned. If I had been offered salvation, I would never have rejected it as you did. Who do you think should pity you now, with all that heaven had offered to you?”
This made the wretch cry out, “Oh, do not continue to torment me; I know that I chose destruction. Oh, that I could forget it! These thoughts are my greatest torture. I chose to be damned, and therefore justly am so.”
Then turning to the demon that tortured him he said, “But I also came here through your temptations, you cursed devil.I suppose that answered my question in a roundabout way. You worship a god that would eternally torment you for not believing in it because you are scared - yes? You don't have the cojones or morals to use your brain and not believe in it.
Fair enough. I don't blame you.You were the one that had tempted me to do all of my sins; and now you would reproach me? You say you never had a Savior offered to you; but you should also remember that you never had a tempter such as you have always been to me.”
To this the devil scornfully replied, “It was my business to lead you here! You had often been warned of this by your preacher. You were plainly told that we sought your ruin, and go about continually like roaring lions, seeking whom we could devour. I was often afraid you that would believe them, as several other souls did, to our great disappointment. But you were willing to do what we wanted; and since you have done our work it is but reasonable that we should pay you wages.” Then the fiend tormented him again and caused him to roar out so horribly that I could no longer stay to hear him, so I passed on
also.....just for an fyi....since you seem to be getting off on repeating episodes of how atheists are going to be tortured forever - that's not love. That's sadism. My friends - both Christian and Atheist alike - i believe that they love me. You, not so much.
I love you. I want you to get out of the danger of hell.
Are you going to heaven? Then naturally hell will be a better place.
“that those in hell complain most about the torment from their own sense of guilt, which confirms the justice of their punishment. This gloomy prison is the best place to rightly understand sin; for were it not so evil, it would not be rewarded with such extreme punishment.”
“What you say is very natural; but there is yet a better place to see the just reward due to sin. That place can be seen when you behold the blessed Son of God upon the cross. There we may see the terrible effects of sin. There we may see all of its true evil. For all the sufferings of the damned here are but the sufferings of created beings; but on the cross you see a suffering God.”If I have any "sin" reading this nonsense is enough to rid me of that.
Hey! Is this the sequel to the Harry Potter story? Is Voldemort back?????
You-can-win the lottery, but I hold all the ace-cards.
You-can-win the argument, but God is on my side, so there!
You-can-win the guessing game if I turn my backside to you and you can see what I am really made of.
So there! rhymes with Troll Troll Troll
I could not help but ask of one demon that so tormented them, who were these souls that he tormented so cruelly?
Said he, “These wretches well deserve their punishment. They tried to teach others the right road to heaven, while they were so in love with hell that they came here. These are those souls that have been our great helpers upon the earth, and therefore they deserve our special attention in hell. We
use our full diligence to give every one their utmost share of torments, for they not only have their own sins to answer for, but also all the sins of those whom they led astray both by their doctrine and example.”
“Since they have been such great helpers for you, I would think that in gratitude you would treat them a little more kindly.”
To this the impudent friend answered me in a scoffing manner, “They that expect gratitude among devils will find themselves mistaken. Gratitude is a virtue, but we hate all virtue. Besides, we hate all mankind, and were it in our power not one of them should be happy. It is true we do not tell them so upon earth, because there it is our business to flatter and deceive them. But when we have them here where they cannot escape, we soon convince them of their foolishness in serving us.”
What happened to free will? It's not a case of not being able to. It is about the case of the right time. Jesus had to come to earth at the right time and He shall return at the right time again, too.
I guess people blame God when bad things happen because they forget about the concept of Free Will. We all have that and I don't believe that God interferes because he/she/it is the one who made that rule.
Personally, I believe that our lives here are simply like a school where we learn how best to behave so that everything turns out right. We have experiences; we learn lessons from our choices, good or bad, and we progress, a little at a time, as we grow.
So, if we don't behave well and things screw up and cause issues, WE are the ones who caused them. God had nothing to do with it. I think it's about time people took responsibility for their own stupid mistakes. I'm not being condescending here because I've made a lot of stupid mistakes myself.
But there comes a point in one's life when one must realize the truth and take responsibility for one's actions. Everything that happens to us, weather good or bad, is a result of our own choices. If we made the right choice, then we get to do" the dance of joy."
If we made the wrong choice, bad things are going to happen and then some people will blame God for those things happening and then will blame God again for not helping them out of it. The truth is, if you got yourself into it, then it's your responsibility to get yourself out.
Those are the rules. Maybe if more people realized that, they wouldn't make so many mistakes.....People who don't believe in God don't blame God for anything. You can't be angry with someone who doesn't exist.
There are some inherent flaws in your argument, as we are not always responsible for the bad things that happen in our lives. Sometimes crap happens and good people get sick and sometimes other peoples mistakes affect other, like the case of a drunk drivers who runs over people simply going for a walk or some nut who thinks he's the Joker opens up and kills a bunch of people at the movie theatre.
hmm...well if people say there is no God, they can't blame all the suffering on God. If there was never any God, there would still be suffering and than of course maybe they'd blame it on science why there is pain and suffering. Or who knows perhaps everyone but atheists are to blame for suffering. Of course because you believe in God, or a higher power that is the wrong choice and we are to blame for all the suffering because we're rebels and don't go along with there is no God. We don't believe God causes suffering. I personally believe the human condition is blamed for people's suffering passing down actions, bad behavior patterns, beliefs, prejudices, discrimination, and hatred because they can't accept differences in their societies, cultures, and religions. You're different umm. they say your at fault for causing suffering because you're interfering in their belief system. Doesn't matter whether you're religous, or atheist you have a beleif system, and if you're wrong that makes the other person right, and how dare anyone be right or wrong. We just like being right at all costs even if it harms another person. Religion is just an excuse we use to say we don't like someone that is different than us, and of course on the opposite side of the spectrum we can say we don't like you because your atheist and different than us. It doesn't matter if we're black or white, red, yellow, green, smart, dumb, skinny, or fat, we will not accept differences and truly I can not blame it on religion, or atheism, or even God. The human animal decides I don't like you for what ever reason because your different so lets do everything in our power to harm someone else.
I don't think the argument is that simplistic. But it is hard to understand why an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God allows good people to suffer. If he "just likes to watch" rape and torture that is a tad creepy.
http://strongtowerbiblechurch.com/media.php?pageID=38
Date 4/21
"A biblical response to tragedy."How about a human one? You know, where people just come together and work things out without the need to glorify a deity or trick you into thinking you're having a spiritual experience in a human body?
As opposed to leaving the earth via 'death', you'd think we'd put all this childishness behind us and build space ships to take us to other worlds. If we can fly, we can take it to another level. Religion is what's keeping us from exploration because with every discovery we make its being proven that its not real or necessary.
Just the concept of visiting other worlds, of pushing beyond our atmosphere (besides legalizing gay marriage) scares religion to bits. They are terrified of losing their 'dependence' on God.
Why allow Jesus to suffer? God could stop suffering but our free will will have to be forfeited because it is the evil committed with free will that empowers Satan and causes suffering. Then if our free will was forfeited people would say He was a dictator.
Satan likes to watch people being raped and tortured.They won't be able to understand the things of God. It is too high for them to even fathom.
The best thing to do is to pray for them, "father they don't know what they do, open their eyes to see the truth."This statement has always been interesting to me. Some Christians (I am guilty of this too sometimes) will state that there is no way we can truly know the mind of God, then turn around at times and tell others what God is thinking and feeling as it relates to others sins and deeds. Let me ask you this, Soldout, why do you think it is that we will say that we cannot understand God then speak for God?
Interesting how that works isn't it? They have all the answers, but when confronted with a conundrum they switch to "God's to complex for us to understand".
I have always approached religions as a complex issue, which is why I consider myself a student and church is my school. I consider being a Christian like a work in progress, not a finished product. Therefore, I don't have the answers, only more questions.
To me, life and religion is a journey, not a destinationThen why have you never said (or at least I don't remember) I don't know? "I don't know" is the honest answer, as "the lord works in mysterious ways" or "God is too complex for us to understand" is dishonest at best.
I have given my opinion, but if someone were to ask me whether something was concrete or not and I didn't know then I would say I don't know. That situation hasn't arisen yet.
As for people saying "God works in mysterious ways" and "God is too complex to understand", in my opinion is not dishonest. If it is mysterious to that person, then it is true. If it is too complex for them to understand, then it is. There is no dishonesty in that.So, while you claim you would say "I don't know" you state you never have had to and every time you don't understand you can claim "God is beyond our comprehension" when you only know your own comprehension? Love it.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never used the word "our". That one word changes the whole statement.
God is beyond our comprehension.
Now without the "our".
God is beyond comprehension.
Same thing."God is beyond "our" comprehension" is including others who may or may not agree with that statement.
"God is beyond comprehension" is general and may or may not speak for others. It is up to the discretion of the speaker at that point.So God is beyond comprehension doesn't mean everyones comprehension? Perhaps that would be true if you said "God is beyond my comprehension". But the reality is a simple "I don't know" is the honest answer.
Yes, "I don't know" is the clearest answer, but we all should know that people aren't always clear. There are some people that are too prideful to admit they don't know an answer.
"God is beyond comprehension" is leaving the meaning up to interpretation.
There is not enough information in that statement to say whether it is dishonest or not. In some cases the speaker might include all people, and others maybe just from speaking personally. The speaker would have to clarify that before one comes to either conclusion.I think what he means is that all too often fundamentalists tend to speak with complete certainty until they meet a question they cannot answer. Instead of exploring the conversation at hand from the perspective of the one they are having the discussion with they say "God works in mysterious ways," or "God's ways are beyond comprehensions." Which is funny because so much of their time is spent on convincing us that an ancient book got it right. I don't think he means a malicious dishonesty, but more a personal dishonesty and even intellectual dishonesty. But, if there's anything that people are good at, it's lying to themselves to make the world a little easier to deal with.
Precisely. I wouldn't even call it a lie, it's more intellectually less honest.
I think that I would add to this to say that believers can say that god is working, but stating it does not make it true or factual. Its a belief or an opinion, not fact. In order to know something, you have to have evidence that is not subjective or purely personal. Otherwise its just an assertion about a belief, nothing more.
"God is beyond comprehension" is a statement. It says one knows the answer and it's beyond comprehension. "I don't know" is the only honest answer. As I said before, I give kudos to Chris for his honesty.
Actually, Those two examples are saying the same as "I don't know" and thus are equally as honest when they stand alone. It only becomes dishonest when preceded by or followed by an assessment as to what God wants or will do
I don't think it's an honest answer because one is claiming they know that God works in mysterious ways when really they don't know. The mysterious ways answer always comes up when we see a conflict that makes no sense. The honest thing would be to do a Chris does and say "I'll have to think about that".
That is your opinion, but I don't share it. I agree with Deepes opinion that it is another way to say I don't know without saying I don't know. Some people are prideful that way.
But you will have to ask those people why they say it because I can't speak for them. I don't know. lolI understand what you're saying, but here is where I disagree. By saying that God works in mysterious ways, we are saying that God is working in a manner that is unknown to us at a specific time. That's like me saying that it's a mystery to me how you do your Graphic art. I know you are an artist, but do not know HOW you do it. It remains a mystery unless and until you show me exactly how you do it. Did that make sense?
Why are they dishonest? If they are truthful answers, why are they dishonest? If you don't understand something but know that God is at work in it then those are not dishonest answers.
i think the dishonesty isn't in knowing that God is at work. The dishonesty is in speaking with certainty as to exactly how God is working then using these statements when asked to elaborate or back up a claim further. Basically, when we put ourselves in a position where we are speaking FOR God rather than ABOUT God and what he says or does..
How come I didn't say that? I tried to, but I didn't. Well said.
I would have to go back and see the actual interchanges to decide whether I thought that was what the person intended. Most of the time (IME) when people use that answer it is precisely because they are speaking ABOUT God and not FOR God.
To further illustrate my point. The bible gives criteria that should be met in order to receive salvation. The bible also states that God will judge as according to the heart of man. If God Judged us based solely on the criteria set out by the word, nobody would get into heaven period because there is only one that meets all of the criteria and that was/is Christ.
So it is dishonest for a Christian to tell anyone else they are going to hell for not meeting a specific criteria and it is dishonest for a Christian to tell someone that they are going to heaven FOR meeting said criteria when we do not truly know their heart and nature. One issue comes in where Christians will state that anyone that is saved and or is Christians will make it into the kingdom of heaven, This is dishonest because the Bible states (paraphrasing) Not everyone that says "Lord, Lord" will make it into heaven. You had people that were following Christ and doing what was asked and he still said "depart from me, you workers of iniquity". With this in mind, it isn't always just about your good or bad deeds here on earth or even your understanding or belief in the word. It is also about the spirit in which you do those deedsI'll take that compliment, though I've (sometimes) tried to explain this stuff to my fellow believers before and gotten blasted for it.
Hey Hey Hey.. I resent that (kind of). I'm a believer too
But, that is the choice you made, to belong to an organization with such folks. That's one of main reasons it should be avoided. Look what it does to good people.
A) That's pretty much what I've said. Often.
B) I'm not following how what you said is in direct correlation to what I said. Again, not having followed the original exchange maybe it does but having joined the conversation a little late I don't see the connection.Okay. I forgot you haven't been in on the whole thing..
But it does correlateIt would probably be more trouble to explain it to me at this point, so I'll just bow out of this particular conversation. Thanks anyway.
Yes, the Bible doesn't say that everyone that says "Lord, Lord" will make it into heaven. This is very clear.
Jesus also said, I am the only way. This is also very clear.
People will not like you for saying this, but the truth is to be shared.
In the OT and NT times, we see many prophets persecuted for speaking the truth as it is.
Because if as you say, you don't understand something, but (know) that God is at work, you can't (know) God is at work if you don't understand something. How can we admit to not understanding and knowing at the same time. It's just what WE were taught to say when we don't understand something. If we are honest we can't admit to not understanding and yet knowing.
I disagree, As I stated before. I know you are a graphic designer, but I don't know HOW you do it. The same principle applies with God. It is believed THAT God created the universe, but it is unknown HOW exactly he did it. so we can speak with certainty that something WAS done (since we have evidence that something was done). We can even speak that something IS being done. What we cannot always do is state with certainty HOW something was or is being done if we were/are not there to witness it personally.
But that's not when people use the phrases, "God works in mysterious ways" or "God is beyond our comprehension" These statements come up when people are asked questions like "why would God allow babies to starve or get cancer".
When given the beyond our comprehension answer are we stating we have knowledge that he is at work when we really have no understanding at all? Are we not giving a false positive? Are we not saying we don't understand but we KNOW God knows what he's doing?
In the case of honestly saying it's a mystery how a logo gets designed would that not be dishonest as well? You certainly have some knowledge of drawing and some knowledge of computers.You're equating two different things. To say we can know something is happening is not the same as saying we understand how it happens. I knew that babies grow inside their mommies long before I understood how it happened. I do, in fact, know that God is at work without always knowing what He is doing or how He is doing it.
If you don't know the how or why, then you simply don't know he's involved. Unless you have evidence to show his involvement? I'm not trying to get anyone to admit they don't know God exists, I'm trying to show what an honest statement is.
I can't agree with that. We absolutely can and often do know that something is happening without knowing the how or the why. Again, the 'babies growing in their mommies' example is, I think, pretty good. According to your logic, those who don't understand anything about gestation (like, say, small children) would therefor be unable to know that a baby is growing inside a woman even though they can plainly see the stomach getting bigger and hear people making over the mom. That is simply not true.
No. We CAN know whether God is at work, sometimes directly. But we DO know that God is ALWAYS at work. By "we" of course I mean believers but if you know God then you know He is always at work. So to say that because I personally don't understand something means that I cannot know whether God is at work in it is the same as saying I cannot know whether there is a God at all, and you know me better than that.
I understand what Deepes and Thousand Words are saying and it's not the same thing you are saying.You think you know, but without proper comprehension you have no way of knowing.
I completely agree.
And that's why I can confidently assert that, because God has granted me the proper comprehension, that I do know.Then what do you say to all those Muslims who claim the same thing? Do you just tell them you are right and they are wrong? Should I just take your word for it?
Have you actually been reading my stuff?
Yeah, if what you're looking for is the short and perhaps somewhat adversarial answer, Christians are right and Muslims are wrong. Jesus is God and did die on the Cross, and properly understood that is not shirk.
What you should do is develop your own relationship with God. That is what I've said over and over. I'm not the Messiah.
Again Chris, that assertion carries with it the premise that you are special and we are not. And, while I'm sure other believers here will attest to having a similar divine comprehension package allotted to them, it only serves to demonstrate the sheer desperation they will turn to in order to have their confirmation bias justified, validated and heard.
It's one thing to honestly admit one's religious beliefs, however accumulated, are based entirely on all the information available to everyone else, but it's entirely another to dishonestly state that one has a direct line of understanding with the big guy.
Seriously Chris, just dropping that one premise would lift your credibility here to new heights.In other words, in order to conform to your idea of honesty and credibility I must, in fact, start practicing dishonesty and therefor actually lessen my credibility?
Interesting.
Again, you miss one major point. Claiming a relationship with God does not equate to claiming specialness. Some people do make that claim of equivalence, both on my side and on yours, but no matter how often you insist on claiming that I am making that claim, I'm not. Quite the opposite actually.Reading comprehension issues, Chris?
You're claims are indeed that of one who believes they are special.Well, at least my predictive abilities have been positively reinforced.
And yes, I do think you have reading comprehension issues but I didn't want to say. Thanks for asking though!
Just to be clear, let me deal with the claim of "specialness."
I'm not claiming a special dispensation that isn't claimed by many other people. Many, many, many other people. So in that respect there is nothing 'special' about my claim and I am not claiming to be 'special' by making it. What that "direct line" you deride actually does is simply clarify that which is available to everyone else (i.e. the Bible.) I do not claim, have never claimed, and have often disavowed that I received what is technically sometimes called "Special Revelation" in that God has spoken directly to me. I've heard no voices and seen no visions. So again, whatever you say (because I'm predicting your response even as I type this) the only 'specialness' I'm claiming is one that would be unique to literally millions of people. In other words, not unique.
I DO think all human beings are special, and I believe that we are all special because we are created in God's image. ALL human beings.
But I claim no special status. If you think I am doing so, then that is your interpretation and inference, not my actual claims.Chris, for me that statement of yours is the most dreadful thing that has ever been perpetrated on this world. It's been said for centuries but particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, when missionaries went out and tried to convert the "savages" of Africa, Asia and America.
The arrogance of that statement is bad in itself. The presumption of superiority, of being right in relationship to "God," while everyone else is inferior because they are wrong.... If Christianity means this to you, then that is the MAJOR reason I will not take on Christianity.
Everything about the bible and all the interpretations have come from that one presumption, that humans are "special." We are not! It's all one big lie.
All of your mental squirming and belief systems will not change that fact.Wow. That's just all I can say, wow. I haven't the foggiest how you came from "We are all special" to "You are inferior because you don't think like me."
I didn't say that at all.
Let me repeat, I DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL.
Now I'm just really, really sad.And I did not say that, Chris.
I am confronting the popular christian belief that we humans, and in particular those who preach christianity and a "love of Christ," are superior by virtue of that belief and that their god chose them to be on his side.
I know it is hard for you to digest this. It is how I see the problems of religion. If your views bring you into this category, that is for you to assess.I've been debating whether I should actually pretend you didn't just act like a condescending jerk by basically accusing me of being a condescending jerk, but then I thought about the fact that I can't hear you because the air is so thick with irony.
Which is my way of saying I process what you say just fine, thank you.
But on the up side, you have taken care of my feeling sad...Chris has been forced to make stuff up that people didn't say in order to support his arguments.
Yes, John, you did. That may not have been the intent but that was the gist of what you said.
To be fair, you really did reinforce a different point I made in another post, which is that I said it didn't feel like you were talking to me but rather at me, and really not even me but to some sort of generic "evangelical." And you did, because in order to deal with this "popular christian belief" you had to ignore what I actually said. What I actually said was that ALL human beings are special, I made NO distinction based on any criteria. AT ALL. You may disagree with why I think all humans are special (because we are made in God's image) but for you to go from what I said to "confronting the popular christian belief" requires that you are not actually dealing with me but only hearing what you want to hear.
And truly, that gets us nowhere.
That is a fallacy. Appeal to popularity.
The bible is not a direct line, it is a book. And, as we all know, it is a book that has spawned tens of thousands of registered denominations, all having their own interpretation of that book.
Really? Haven't you claimed to have had conversations with God?I have claimed that I talk with God. I never said he directly answers me. I've never heard his "voice" and have been saying so from the beginning.
But you knew that already, didn't you?That was a nice try with the appeal to popularity fallacy, though. Mis-application, but nice try.
Deepes,
Yes we don't know everything about God!
Yet He has made himself known to us in the Bible. The Bible said, "now we know in part, but when we see Him, we'll know all the mysteries."
You asked, ..why do you think it is that we will say that we cannot understand God then speak for God?
I speak about the things i read in the Bible. And the Bible is full of lessons for our life. And the things we need to know, He made it known to us in His words.And I agree, with this. Why do you think it is that some look to pass judgment on others? This is not about you. Just a general question
If bad things happening proves God doesn't exist, then would good things happening means he does exist? Wouldn't that reasoning negate each reason out?
That would be a bit like saying you have a great husband if he punches you in the face but also buys you flowers.
and we are not talking about God performing these bad deeds, so it is like you are comparing apples and oranges.
If you go to where this conversation started, if God is omnipotent--bad things only happen because he made the system so that it creates badness, and he allows it to do so.
Ergo either God is not omnipotent, or God is not good (or it is good to create evil beings and let them run around being evil and causing suffering even though you could stop them).So lets use your logic on a smaller level: if someone starts a company and becomes CEO and it becomes a billions dollar firm that employs hundreds of thousands of people and contributes to the global society by giving a quality of life that they otherwise would not have. But of these thousands of employees some of them steal or make bad deals or get convicted of murder or abuses their spouse, but overall the company does good and makes money, is he a bad CEO?
I would say that the world God has created and blessed us with is good, but the bad things that happen are done by free thinking individuals that choose to do wrong.Free thinking individuals? Are you not Free to Think? Right from Wrong?
The fear of God is not a driving force for all Christians choice to do right.
"Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
I form the light, and create darkness,.... Natural light, or that light which was produced at the first creation, and of which the sun is the fountain and source; or day which is light, and night which is darkness, the constant revolutions of which were formed, appointed, and are continued by the Lord, Genesis 1:3, moral light, or the light of nature, the rational understanding in man; spiritual light, or the light of grace, by which things spiritual and supernatural are known; the light of joy and comfort from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and the light of eternal glory and happiness: this is all from God, of his producing and giving; and so darkness is his creature; that natural darkness which was upon the face of the earth at the beginning; what arises from the absence of the sun, or is occasioned by the eclipses of it, or very black clouds; or any extraordinary darkness, such as was in Egypt; or deprivation of sight, blindness in men; and, in a figurative sense, ignorance and darkness that follow upon sin; judicial blindness, God gives men up and leaves them to; temporal afflictions and distresses, and everlasting punishment, which is blackness of darkness:
I make peace, and create evil; peace between God and men is made by Christ, who is God over all; spiritual peace of conscience comes from God, through Christ, by the Spirit; eternal glory and happiness is of God, which saints enter into at death; peace among the saints themselves here, and with the men of the world; peace in churches, and in the world, God is the author of, even of all prosperity of every kind, which this word includes: "evil" is also from him; not the evil of sin; this is not to be found among the creatures God made; this is of men, though suffered by the Lord, and overruled by him for good: but the evil of punishment for sin, God's sore judgments, famine, pestilence, evil beasts, and the sword, or war, which latter may more especially be intended, as it is opposed to peace; this usually is the effect of sin; may be sometimes lawfully engaged in; whether on a good or bad foundation is permitted by God; moreover, all afflictions, adversities, and calamities, come under this name, and are of God; see Job 2:10,
I the Lord do all these things; and therefore must be the true God, and the one and only one. Kimchi, from Saadiah Gaon, observes, that this is said against those that assert two gods, the one good, and the other evil; whereas the Lord is the Maker of good and evil, and therefore must be above all; and it is worthy of observation, that the Persian Magi, before Zoroastres (m), held two first causes, the one light, or the good god, the author of all good; and the other darkness, or the evil god, the author of all evil; the one they called Oromazes, the other Arimanius; and, as Dr. Prideaux (n) observes,
"these words are directed to Cyrus king of Persia, and must be understood as spoken in reference to the Persian sect of the Magians; who then held light and darkness, or good and evil, to be the supreme Beings, without acknowledging the great God as superior to both;''
and which these words show; for Zoroastres, who reformed them in this first principle of their religion, was after Isaiah's time.
(m) Vid. Pocock. Specimen Arab. Hist. p. 147, 148. (n) Connexion, part 1. p. 215. "
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm
More explaination of that verse Isaiah 45:7:
Also all life created has a free will (exceptions maybe of viruses, bacterias and things of that nature etc, but you get my point), has free will as a gift, as God did not want to have robots and by that free will some choose evil, and in that regard God is creator of all things, but its not Gods fault what anyone, example humans created in Gods image choose by their free will to do, its completely their own free will, as someone sows they shall also reap, either good or bad, God is not mocked Galatians 6:7.
http://bibleisgodswordforalltime.blogsp … verse.htmlMore deep new study about this here also:
http://securebackupbible.blogspot.se/20 … -your.html
No, it would mean both God and Satan exist.
What is "exist"? Just because you think about a being doesn't mean that being "exist".
What is "god"?
What is "satan"?
How did they "arise"?God and Satan are powerful omniscience beings; one being the epitome of evil and the other the epitome of good.
I have no idea where they came from.Good and evil are relative so what does this epitome of good and bad means? Suppose Satan helped the Americans he was doing good to Saddam and vice versa{same with god too}. If they are just two beings they will also die(omniscience or not) and has to evolve from lower animals.[and though an interesting concept, omniscience is nonsense, a good educated guess is not omniscience].
if good and evil are relative you wouldn't mind if your family is held captive and raped. after all this will just ensure our species continues.
And you will be happy if this happened to you because it's god's will?
im not the one that thinks good and evil are relative. i believe in objective morality. so no, i wouldnt be happy. and that would never be God's will.
When that happens that happens without god knowing?
To the person who does that it is good and that's why it usually happens in all wars..you only see the victim side(So with whom are you comparing it to be 'relative'?), even there some prefer to be left alive, so it is relative.Sorry, i must be missing something. Do you believe rape is wrong? yes or no. If so, explain how its wrong from a relativistic view. If you think its neither right or wrong, than do you think people should be punished for any crimes at all?
Relative, you understand that?
For the one who rape it is good otherwise he won't do that. For the victim it is bad.
For the society who approves rape, especially among the subjugated, it is right and for the vanquished it is wrong. It is not my opinion that is under question, but the definition of relative.
It is the society that decide what a crime is. Hardly 100 years before racism was not a crime in America, but is now. But killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis is just "collateral damage" not crime! It is just an opinion that is based on the side one stand or the morals one follow.I see what you mean that the one who rapes thinks its good and the victim thinks its bad. How exactly does society decide what is a crime and what isn't? if the person who is doing the raping is only doing what he thinks is right, why should he be punished?
Just like any other animal that live in group does.
It is not what think, but what the society thinks that does matter, the law. But if he is powerful enough, he won't be punished. Divorce was not allowed, but Henry VIII did divorce and remarry.If someone is powerful enough they can get away with murder as well. Does that make it right? Is ones status in society the decider of morality?
No, culture and society decide morality.
Go to youtube and look up a presentation called "the superiority of secular morality" by Matt dillahunty. It defines where morality comes from and why it differs in different cultures.It is the society that decides. Power means the number of people you can get to agree with you. There is no "stand alone" right and wrong, it is a comparison and decided by the people.
Trust me, when it comes to God and Satan there is no relativity. Humans living in an imperfect world and being human can commit things that are relative. For example, people know that killing is wrong but a woman may have an abortion if it threatens her life. So even though killing is wrong that woman having an abortion has not committed a sin.
Are you suggesting that America treated Saddam as an ally? Benefiting from something is not the same thing as good happening to a person.
How can two spirits die if they have no bodies?Only if you say logical things, otherwise why should I trust you? What give you a better idea about these than me? There is no inherent good or bad as they are human constructs.
????
"people know that killing is wrong"
Only some of the modern human 'know' killing is wrong. Soldiers, especially of the yore know killing enemies is good. The sentenilese will kill you the moment you step on their territory even now.
How can spirit exist if they have no bodies?
they are both spiritual beings. God is eternal and just always was. Satan is and angel (a type of spiritual being although fallen) and was created by God , just like everyone else and everything else was created.
How a spiritual being, a concept, be eternal?
God has no idea how to destroy a thing he created?a spiritual being is not a concept. its real. i also answered that question why he hasnt destroyed satan.
Spirit is a concept, being is not, but beings cannot be eternal.
So god is impotent and incapable of destroying satan?I disagree. You cannot put any "real" parameters of description around a spiritual being. It's a construct of your mind, an imaginary "thing." No two persons can have an absolute understanding of what they see in their minds as a "spiritual being."
Hold and state your religious beliefs for your self. Then listen to and respect the opinions of others, as equal to your own. That is what I do for your beliefs.I respect other beliefs. I'm simply stating my views. If my views on conflicting or in disagreement with another persons, how is that different than what you've just done? I apologize to anyone here if anything I've said sounds insensitive, snotty , or disdainful. I actually enjoy conflicting views because I believe we sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron.
Simply stating your views of course is right and fair in any discussion. I and most others here will respect you for that and would not wish you to apologize .
It's just that when I hear a statement made, with the presumption that the statement is factual and obviously to be accepted by all, .... this triggers annoyance in me. If at any time I do the same, please pick me up on it.
Religious expression is important for many people and, regardless of whether I agree with the expression, provided it does no one any harm, then it must be allowed. However, the adamant claim that any religious opinion is universally "absolutely true" is not acceptable because it depends on so many factors which are peculiar to the individual.
Don't let me deter you from continuing to express your views.I just don't understand why I cant express my religion as absolute truth. If I didn't believe it to be true, then why would I believe it? This goes for any idea I may have. I'm not forcing anyone to believe what I believe (I dont think that is even possible), I do however believe what I believe to be truth. I dont quite understand 2 people could hold conflicting views and both be right. either one or both has to be wrong.
It's because many people don't seem to be aware of the difference between "believing" something and "knowing" something. People tend to use those terms interchangeably, but they cannot be used that way. No belief is absolute truth because a belief cannot be proven or disproven. It isn't testable. It's very nature evades the scientific method. If something is not even able to be tested for reliability and validity, it certainly cannot be considered "truth." But it can be considered a belief. Anybody can believe anything they want. That doesn't make it true. When people are able to hold opinions and admit that they are just that - opinions, then there wouldn't be any need to argue. But it is because people present opinions as truths that there are some who feel the need to challenge them.
Example: A bacteria is a single-celled organism. I don't have to believe that that's true. I can observe this myself with the right tools and come to the same conclusion and so I can know that it's true. No need for emotional anecdotes or trying to convince anyone of anything, I can just show them how to verify it themselves, and they don't have to open their hearts to it. It's in plain view for anyone with access to a microscope to see.
A religious belief is not testable, therefore it cannot be presented as truth, but merely as a belief or opinion.
I have an opinion that the Universe itself could possibly be "intelligent," but I do not present it as truth in discussions because there is no possible way for me to prove it, it is simply an idea that I entertain as being possible for various reasons. But you won't hear me telling people this as though it is fact, because I understand the nature of a belief vs a knowable fact. I merely present it as a possibility if I mention it at all.
The realm of facts is meant for actual facts, and the realm of opinion is meant for opinion. But most Christians think it isn't Christian-like to approach their beliefs in such a way because the nature of most religions is that what's being taught/learned is truth and not a belief or an opinion, which is where the problem starts.I understand anyone can believe anything they want and I doesn't make it true. Does that make it untrue then? I also don't agree that religion can't be tested. For example: The Mormon bible makes clear statements about historical claims. it also makes a claim that is the most correct book on earth. If any of the historical claim turn out to be false using archaeological and historical artifacts and science, we can be sure the Mormon bible falls flat. Same can be said for the christian bible. If religion were merely an opinion such as pizza is my favorite food, then your absolutely right. people would not argue over it. The truth is however God either exists or he does not. How could that be a matter of opinion?
But neither the Mormon Bible or the Christian Bible are proven by historical archeology.
At best, archeology demonstrates that places mentioned in the Bible were real places. That does not make the stories about those places true. If that were the case, you'd have to argue that because New York City is a real place and spiderman is said to live there, Spiderman is real.
Or that since the places mentioned in the Odyssey and the Iliad are real, Cyclopes, mermaids and Greek gods are all real too.
If you disagree, then you're using special pleading for the book that you WANT to be true, while not giving other stories the same latitude.
Whether god exists or not is an opinion because you cannot demonstrably prove (with evidence) that he exists. Until it can be proven, you cannot claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty as anything more than a matter of opinion.Maybe I'm getting old, but I already said this :p
the merneptah stele, tel dan stele, the moabite stone, the pilate stone, the pool of siloam, the pool of bethesda, sennacherib's prism, shalmanesers black obelisk, sargons palace, dead sea scrolls. These are all archaeological finds that prove the historical accuracy of the bible. Also just recently the same guy that found the titanic use the same technology to prove there actually was a global flood. Something that was dismissed as fallacy for many years. I forget his name, sorry. Should be easy to find. Do any of these alone give absolute prove for God. No, of course not. It does though suggest that whats written in the bible can at the very least be taken seriously enough to be considered as true and not just swept away because there are miracles spoken of in it.
There is no evidence of any global flood. 6000 years ago humans were in every corner of the earth.
Not sure what that has to do with anything. This information came out about 4-5 months ago. I can tell you didnt bother to look it up.
Okay, the Merneptah Stele is a rock with an inscription from an Egyptian King that mentions the name Israel. We know that Israel existed. This is not evidence that the Bible is true. In fact, scholars disagree on the word that was originally translated “Israel” in the first place.
The tel dan stele mentions the name of King David. It has stirred up lots of controversy, and is not accepted across the board by archaeologists or biblical scholars, and everything from its dating to its significance is in question. Even if it does prove that a King David was a real person, it doesn’t prove any of the biblical stories true – and actually proves my point. Just because a person or a place is mentioned does not make any of the stories about them or the place true.
The the moabite stone is more of the same. Moab existed and was briefly enslaved by Israel. So what? This is not proof that your god exists. It proves that the Israelites were a real tribe that behaved like typical tribal people. No one is doubting that.
The Pilate stone proves that Pilate was a real, historical figure. So what? We have contemporary accounts of him that are extra biblical. We have records and letters and statements. We would know about Pilate with or without the Bible – and the bible actually contradicts everything historically known about the man’s character.
As for the global flood, Ballard is finding proof for a regional flood. Not a worldwide flood. I watched the documentary. I’m perfectly willing to accept that there was a regional flood in the area, but that doesn’t mean that there was a giant ark full of each kind of animal (how did the kangaroos get there, btw) and water covered the entire earth. Ballard is searching ONE SPECIFIC REGION and ONE SPECIFIC BODY OF WATER. He’s not even TRYING to claim that it was a global flood. You need to bone up on your research.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12 … e-titanic/
Do I really need to go on? The rest of the things that you listed are just more of the same. Places and/or specific people. This does nothing to prove the existence of the god that they believe in or any of the fantastical stories. Do you believe the stories portrayed in the Odyssey or the Iliad because they list real places? Most tribal, mythical or culture stories have some basis in real events that then get expanded and exaggerated over time. Finding evidence for real places or historical figures do not make the stories about them true, and it doesn't mean that the bible's crediting a specific god are true. You cannot jump from "look this place exists" to "everything in the bible must be true, therefore my god is real". That's not a logical progression. That is taking a giant leap.I'm pretty sure I said it was not proof of God. I stated it give reliability to the historical accuracy of the bible. Not that you believe in evolution. You have never stated whether you do or not. However I'm sure you would agree that its widely accepted among atheistic circles and accepted by science in general to be true. everything i mentioned and more is still more evidence than what evolution has. Why does proof of God require more evidence than this?1 more point I would like to make is none of the evidence stands alone. It builds a cumulative case. This is how most of what we know about history is discovered. This is also how most detectives build a case to show someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything adds up like putting a puzzle together until you get a full picture.
Okay, first of all - you can't compare this to evolution, and evolution is an entirely different discussion - and this forum is not the place for it.
Secondly, let me try to put this another way.
Until the middle of the 19th Century, historians thought that Troy was mythological, since it was part of Homer's Iliad. Then, they started uncovering evidence of it. Since Troy was recognized to be a real, historical place - does that make all the stories about it depicted in the Iliad true? Was it attacked by the son of a god who was immortal except for his heel? Does it make all of the mythological tales in the Iliad and the Odyssey true by default, so there are Cyclops, Centaurs and Medusas roaming the countryside?
Islam has real, historical places involved in its mythology and the Koran. Does that make everything that the Muslims claim to be true true by default? You can visit Mecca. You can see the stone. Does that mean that what they say about it is true? If you can prove that any of the placed depicted in ANY mythology are real, historical places does that make the mythology true for you?
In an important book, The End of Biblical Studies (Prometheus, 2007), Biblical scholar Hector Avalos argues that:
Since archaeology has failed to reveal much biblical history that matters, biblical archaeology… not only has ceased to be relevant but it has ceased to exist as we knew it. Instead of revealing biblical history, archaeology has provided a fundamental argument to move beyond the Bible itself. If… biblical archaeology has to serve theology once more to be relevant, its days as a secular academic field are numbered. Either way, biblical archaeology ended in ruins—literally, socially, and metaphorically…
So our purpose is to excise from modern life what little of the Bible is being used and also to eliminate the potential use of any sacred scripture as an authority in the modern world. Sacred texts are the problem that most scholars are not willing to confront. What I seek is liberation from the very idea that any sacred text should be an authority for modern human existence. Abolishing human reliance on sacred texts is imperative when those sacred texts imperil the existence of human civilisation as it is currently configured. The letter can kill. That is why the only mission of biblical studies should be to end biblical studies as we know it.
Strong words. And perhaps a little over-the-top. But, as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman show in The Bible unearthed: archaeology’s new vision of ancient Israel and the origin of its sacred texts (2001), archaeology paints a coherent picture of the development of the Jewish people that is completely at odds with the claims of the Bible. No amount of fraud, wilful misinterpretation of data or quests to find the objects that will ‘prove’ a particular religious viewpoint will bring back the innocent and ignorant days when the Bible could be read as literally true.
also from this site:
http://fuzzyquark.comxa.com/archaeology.html
Sometimes you will hear Christians tell you that archaeological evidence proves the Bible is true. Have a think about this though - archaeology cannot prove that a particular story in the Bible is true: suppose that archaeological evidence was found that a particular battle occured, e.g. the remains of a city are discovered exactly where the Bible says the battle took place. This only proves that a battle took place, it does NOT prove that Yahweh smote the unbelieving heathens from heaven.
However, if you turn it around, it is possible for archaeological evidence to prove that the Bible is untrue. For example, if the Bible says that a battle took place at a particular time and place, and archaeological evidence shows that this cannot have happened, it proves that the Bible is in error.
This kind of evidence would be even more compelling if it were discovered by a christian. Well, this actually happened - take a look at Joshua 8:26-28:
For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua. And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.
Joseph Callaway, professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, excavated the ruins of Ai between 1964 and 1976 and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the Bible version completely:
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis mine).
There is also no archaeological evidence that the Exodus from Egypt ever happened. Numbers chapter 1 gives an idea of the huge number of Israelites that apparently wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. However, the Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren spent 10 years excavating the site, and "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the Biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988).we are a little stuck on this just because you can prove a place exist thing. I wasn't trying to bring up evolution as a discussion. I was just trying to make a point that there are things that seem every bit as magical as anything in any religion and are accepted as truth by people who supposedly on believe in scientific evidence. Finally the 2 example given in that site that prove the errancy of the bible are things they couldn't find. Not too compelling really.
no, I think you're missing the point. Knowing that a place existed does not mean that magical things happened there, nor does it confirm the claimed source of those magical things. I haven't failed to notice that you've completely sidestepped answering my question several times. Do you believe the stories of other ancient mythologies to be true because certain places have been discovered?
Nothing about evolution is magical. If you studied it, you would know that, and there's a big difference between proven, observable facts in the present and old ruins that prove a city existed thousands of years ago.
The fact that Jericho was only a small town (without walls) at the time that Joshua supposedly wandered around it and "made the walls come tumbling down" is actually rather compelling. No walls, no magical walk caused them to fall down. It's really that simple. Additionally, having Jew acknowledge that the exodus out of egypt is probably a legend and not a historical reality is actually compelling to me. Egyptians have one of the most extensive written records of the ancient world to be discovered, and failing to mention a series of plagues, catastrophes and a mass exodus seems little strange.
Lets talk about jesus. Can you name one, contemporary extra-biblical source that mentions him?I haven't side stepped your question. My answer has been I guess in indirect fashion is that no I don't believe in mythologies just because it mentions an actual place. I have also stated a couple times that I don't believe this gives evidence for God's existence. Just that it does prove there is historical accuracy in the bible. What proof is there that Jericho didn't have walls at the time of Joshua. Its also easy to assume Egypt wouldn't write about the exodus. That not really a part of history that would concern them. What jew by the way acknowledged the exodus was PROBABLY a legend? I do agree with you though that there isnt anything mentioned of plagues and catastrophes written in Egyptian history. I also know there is nothing written about jews as slaves.Still not too hard to imagine though in ancient times that the story of slaves wouldn't be talked about are written about much. Honestly I don't know anyone that wrote of Jesus during his time other than whats in the bible. Even that was written after his death and before 70 AD. Bart Ehrman is someone of today that has written again the reliability of the gospels. He doesn't deny they existence of Jesus however.
Yes, I'm familiar with Ehrman's work. Intimately so, since I've listened to several of his lectures. His book "did Jesus Exist" was met with scathing criticism - and it's not surprising. While I'm typically a fan of his work, the scholarship of this book (which he admitted is outside the range of his typical field of study, and he admits to researching, writing and publishing the book in under a year - which is practically unheard of in the field of biblical scholarship.) I find it interesting to note that you admit he sufficiently demonstrates the unreliability of the gospels, yet claim his work when it fits in line with what you believe in the historicity of Jesus. That's ultimately the point. There is no contemporary historical evidence of Jesus apart from the gospels, which were not written by eyewitnesses at all. Yet you find them reliable - enough to stake your life on it.
I have never once said that there is NOTHING historically reliable about the Bible. I'm certain that there is. But because the bible has some proven historical elements does not automatically mean that it can be accepted as a whole. A lot of books have truth or lessons that have proven true - that doesn't mean that you accept it as "absolute truth", does it?
You said "The Mormon bible makes clear statements about historical claims. it also makes a claim that is the most correct book on earth. If any of the historical claim turn out to be false using archaeological and historical artifacts and science, we can be sure the Mormon bible falls flat. Same can be said for the christian bible"
I pointed to the example of Jericho. It has been researched for years and years and years - and the findings have been rather conclusive.
After extensive archeological investigation, it seems that Jericho did not walls at the time of the Israelite conquest. The archeologist Kathleen Kenyon, along with Sir Mortimer Wheeler, conducted a detailed look into the history of Jericho and its investigations. Prior archeologists, she felt, hadn’t done their job. So, between 1952 and 1958, Kenyon and Wheeler gave Jericho another examination.
Scholar James Kugel writes about their findings:
What Kenyon found was that, while the city of Jericho had been an important center at an earlier point in its history, by the Late Bronze age (ca. 1200 BCE, the approximate time of [the events in Joshua 6], Jericho was a poor, and poorly defended, little settlement.
No data, then, Kenyon or any others have found, supports the idea that, at the time of Joshua, Jericho was a fortified, walled city. In fact, it may have even been abandoned by the time the Israelites came through. (This would obviously disprove that there were any innocents killed whatsoever at the site, of course.) Jericho, Kugel reports, wasn’t resettled until 700 years after Joshua was living, when it was fortified again.
Kugel concludes: “Perhaps it was this later reality, scholars say, that inspired the picture of Jericho’s might walls…” Whatever it was, it most likely was not reality that “inspired” the story.
That being said - her findings are not unanimously agreed upon across the board, and it is certain up for debate - like everything else in the field of archaeology, science and biblical history. Yet, I come back to your original claim - if any of the facts in the bible can be disproved using archaeological and scientific evidence, the entire claim falls flat.
Bronze Age
Archaeological evidence indicates that in the latter half of the Middle Bronze Age (circa 1700 BC) the city enjoyed some prosperity, its walls having been strengthened and expanded.[21] According to carbon dating the Canaanite city (Jericho City IV) was destroyed between 1617 and 1530 BC.[22] The site remained uninhabited until the city was refounded in the 9th century BC.[citation needed]
There is an Abrahamic tradition that the city of Jericho was destroyed by the Israelites circa 1436 BC. The timing of this tradition does not appear to be supported by this archaeological record, thus causing some to speculate that if this Abrahamic tradition were based on an actual historical event, then perhaps the chronology of the Abrahamic tradition may have erred by one or more centuries.[citation needed]
Iron Age
In the 8th century BC the Assyrians invaded from the north, followed by the Babylonians, and Jericho was depopulated between 586 and 538 BC, the period of the Jewish exile to Babylon. Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, refounded the city one mile southeast of its historic site at the mound of Tell es-Sultan and returned the Jewish exiles after conquering Babylon in 539 BC.[12]
As for the Exodus from Egypt - I find it difficult to believe that a culture that wrote everything down (archaeologists have uncovered grocery lists from ancient Egypt) would fail to mention a series of plagues, the death of all of the firstborn and more. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/staks-ros … 08123.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism … .aspx?p=1#I will definitely look into these things. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss all this with me. I really enjoy debating Christianity with people who are as well informed as you and who have obviously done much study on the subject.It always Gives me perspective and sheds light in area's I need to do more studying of my own on. Just a quick comment about Ehrman, I actually head of him from a podcast called Unbelievable. He was awesome to listen to and very respectful to the people he debates. So I am a fan as well even though I dont agree with everything. If you listen to podcasts I suggest checking out Unbelievable. Good weekly show where they usually get an atheist and a christian to debate different topics.
I've heard Ehrman on Unbelievable, and I've listened to a lot of his lectures and debates available on youtube and through studying his course material.
I've appreciated the conversation with you as well. You remained respectful and open, and I respect that. I look forward to talking to you again, soon.lol never assumed you were, but i'm glad my expectations can still be challenged. its always a pleasant surprise.
At the very least, your post reveals you have no understanding of evolution or even science for that matter.
That is entirely false. Evolution is accepted by the Pope, the Pope before him and the one before him, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the one before him and the one before him, along with over 95% of the Christian population.
And, there are mountains of evidence for evolution, overwhelmingly more than any evidence there is for all the scriptures in the world combined.I would like to see where you got the 95% of christians believe evolution. If there is a mountain of evidence for evolution, give me what you think are the 5 best. just leave out the similar bone structure thing. Only because i've heard it a million times. Not gonna say much about the pope, because frankly I dont care what he thinks. He isnt the authority of christianity. anyway, i didnt even say ONLY atheists believe evolution. i just said most atheists believe it. I wont say all, because it was a notion I rejected when i was once an atheist.
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/fi … -evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
First, as many people willl point out ... you don't PROVE things in science. You only find supporting *evidence*. This is true in evolution, in other realms of biology, in chemistry, in physics, etc.
This is a *partial* list of evidence of evolution (sorry this is long, but there's a *lot* of evidence ... and you did ask for "as much as I can"):
1. Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature:
a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)
b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).
c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.
d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.
2. Fossil evidence - (So much to list). The way fossils appear in the layers of rock always corresponds to relative development ... more primitive creatures in lower (older) layers. Absolute dating of fossils using radiometry. Constant discovery of new transitional forms. E.g. reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, legged whales, legged sea cows.
3. Genetic evidence - E.g. the fact that humans have a huge number of genes (as much as 96%) in common with other great apes ... and (as much as 50%) with wheat plants. The pattern of genetic evidence follows the tell-tale patterns of ancestral relationships (more genes in common between recently related species, and fading the further back in time).
4. Molecular evidence - These are commonalities in DNA ... which is separate from genetic commonalities ... much of our DNA does not code for genes at all. But random mutations (basically 'typos') enter into DNA at a known rate over the centuries. This is called the 'molecular clock' and again gives excellent evidence of when humans diverged from other apes (about 6 million years ago, according to this molecular clock), and this corresponds perfectly with when these fossils first appear in the fossil record (using radiometric dating).
5. Evidence from proteins - Proteins - E.g., things like blood proteins (the things that give us our A, B, O blood typing and the Rh factor (the plus/minus thing) which incidentally stands for 'rhesus monkey'); the exact structure of the insulin molecule; and my favorite, the proteins responsible for color vision. The specific proteins found in human color vision are exactly the same as those found in Old World primates (the great apes and the monkeys found in Africa and Asia). These proteins are absent in New World primates (the Central and South American monkeys), and from all other mammals. In fact among the New World primates, only the howler monkey has color vision ... but these use slightly *different* proteins, coded on different locations and chromosomes, than humans and the OW primates. This is yet more evidence of a closer link between humans and the OW primates.
6. Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).
7. Embryology - E.g. Legs on dolphin embryos; tails and gill folds on human embryos; snake embryos with legs; marsupial eggshell and carnuncle.
8. Biogeography - The current and past distribution of species on the planet. E.g. almost all marsupials and almost no placental mammals are native to Australia ... the result of speciation in a geographically isolated area.
9. Homology - E.g. the same bones in the same relative positions in primate hands, bat wings, bird wings, mammals, whale and penguin flippers, pterosaur wings, horse legs, the forelimbs of moles, and webbed amphibian legs.
10. Bacteriology, virology, immunology, pest-control - I.e. the way that bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics (we can compare strains of tuberculosis today, with samples of older epidemics and can see the specific structures), or viruses (like HIV) respond to antivirals, or insects evolving in response to pesticides.
... And there's more ... a LOT more. I'm stopping only because I'm getting tired of typing, and I don't know if you're actually going to read this. (I and others have compiled lists in response to this question *so* many times ... only to get absolutely no reponse or comment whatsoever from the asker.)
Source(s):
This is an excellent site I discovered recently (UC Berkeley):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev…
And here is the wikipedia site, just on *evidence* of evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of…actually i think i only asked for 5 best, but thanks, lol. also i believe the question was to a troubled man. so he should thank you for doing the grunt work as well.
These aren't hard to find, and I'm a constant over-achiever - as evidenced from our past conversation.
lol. yes i see. thank you for all the websites by the way. I'm copying to my favorites at this very moment. a few other questions about evolution. if animals evolved to other species, then why dont those previous kinds phase out at some point? such as apes turning into humans. why are there still apes? or whales to cows. why are there still whales? seems like they would have been phased out through the evolutionary process. correct me if im wrong on this one. arent we supposed to evolve for the better? seems like if this were true event with our advanced brains, we would have still kept the strength, speed, eyesight, hear, smell and other area's that other animals or so much more superior than us at. would have been great skills for our ancestors for hunting purposes not all that long ago. also can evolution explain a beginning, or is this a different discussion?
I'm sorry did you say you were once an atheist who rejected evolution? I think I understand why. You don't know anything about it. I don't mean that in a condescending way - but seriously. You just asked one of the most popular, yet most ignorant questions that believers HAVE about evolution, and I find it a little difficult to believe that you were an atheist who spent any amount of time studying evolution before rejecting it without even understanding it.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_come_t … monkeys%3F
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. At all. Another common misconception that is touted by fundy christian apologists.to be fair i did follow it up with is that a different discussion. i was an atheist that rejected evolution. to be fair again, i never said i did any type of study on it. this was about 15 yrs or so ago, i the only thing i was really interested in then was getting high.
fair enough. I guess I assumed that if you rejected evolution, you at least knew the basics of it in order to reject it rationally.
Im sorry I have to go back on something i said. if its an ignorant question then it is. If evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then what does? evolution still must have had a beginning. It started at some point, didnt it?
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/200 … verse.html
Here's a blog posting you can read concerning that.Perhaps, you're referring to abiogenesis.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Have you now studied evolution, understand and accept it? Or, do you still reject it?
I'm christian now, so i still reject it. lol. however I am doing more research on it more now than i ever really have.
this is a really long video, but it's worth watching if you have the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_YwI seriously doubt you understand evolution even remotely.
It would do you a great service to take the time to understand the postulates of evolutionary theory, that way, those questions will be answered and you'll gain full understanding. Without the fundamental understanding, answers to those questions will appear meaningless.
You'll have to excuse JM.. Sometimes she goes above and beyond.. But I still love her anyway...LOL
I don't know whether to feel proud or outraged.
You deserve a banning regardless
(or in your case, should I say irregardless?)
No, most atheists understand evolution, not believe in it. Rejecting something without understanding it is just dishonesty to oneself.
Isn't that obvious? If God's existence were a fact, we would all know it and accept it as fact.
For example, gravity is a fact. Flapping ones arms while stepping off a cliff will produce exactly the same results with every single person on the planet, and we all know and accept that.my original statement was God either exist or he does not. I forgot who responded to this basically saying thats not a fact but an opinion. Then I asked why this wasnt a matter of fact. In this particular case, I'm not arguing for the existence of God , more against the relativism if i remember correctly. I apologize. my memory sucks and I have been reading a lot of information given to me.
The issue is that our religion is not specifically what is universally considered as absolute truth. Our religion is a belief. It's our faith. We BELIEVE it to be true, but we do not KNOW it to be true for sure. With this in mind, any evidence that we have only serves to reinforce our beliefs rather than change belief to knowledge. A lot of people that are looking for evidence, are looking for something that can pass through the scientific method. This is kind of a double edge sword here. People are trying to apply a PHYSICAL principle and process to a SPIRITUAL concept. The issue with this is that the physically minded cannot specifically get what they are looking for and the spiritually minded cannot provide what is needed. as a result, neither side can accept what the other side is showing them which will mean that the debate on religion will continue to go on until either we die or until what is written in the book of revelation comes to pass (if it does come to pass). Until this happens, we can only continue to express our beliefs as BELIEFS rather than absolute knowledge and cannot be angry if someone who is of a different mind disagrees or questions the belief.
The problem is, if we 'believe' it to be true but don't 'KNOW' it to be true, then what's the point?
Obviously being a Calvinist I come at this from a far more literal interpretation of the Bible than most people, even other Christians here, but seriously, it's never been explained to me how verses like, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except by me." can be in any way allegorical, and not applicable to everyone.
Having said that, and what a lot of people don't understand, yes I can and do accept that other people have different beliefs about a lot of things. But if I didn't believe that God is real, and that is true for everyone, then how could I ever argue with a straight face for it?
I think I've somewhat mellowed in my approach and the way I take most people. But one thing that has frustrated me about this forum is that I also take everyone as an individual. I don't see Rad the same way I see JM or you or Melissa. Yet I often get treated as a cookie-cutter Christian. Maybe I'm a little over-sensitive about it, but if I'm having a conversation with someone, I don't want them to switch from talking to me to talking to some generic idea they have about Conservative Christians, especially if that produces unwarranted anger.The point is that the lives we lead are based on acting on the things we believe in as well as the things we know. The things we believe in help to shape our principles. Our beliefs shape our INDIVIDUAL lives. The biggest issue is that some try to apply or force things that work best for themselves in their individual lives onto other individuals rather than allowing those others to find or live in what's working best for their individual lives.
Taking that literal approach is what you find works best for you. And that's fine FOR YOU. But there are others that take a different look at the bible and have found understanding in it that works for THEM. And even for those that don't believe in the bible or God, are you so certain that even if they live a Godly life and adhere to the principles in the bible and the examples that Christ laid out that they still do not have a chance? "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man can come to the Father except by me" does not necessarily speak toward belief in him. What if it meant that as long as someone follows his example?
Again, you're mixing belief with knowledge.. You can still argue with a straight face the things you BELIEVE to be true even for everyone as long as you accept that others have different beliefs and that your evidence is not necessarily universal for everyone.
You are far from a cookie cutter Christian in your specific beliefs and you do try to treat everyone individually. The one thing I would say that makes you close to "cookie cutter" is in how in some of your responses, you do get snarky to the point where you end up engaging in a tit for tat insult game with some of the others (Riddle and ATM) come to mind here. This is where in some ways, they treat you the same as they treat some of the other Christians. But I do agree that you've mellowed out some from when I first started hereAll believers believe they are right on faith, I get that, understand and respect that, but I'm confused as to how you can all think your right without understanding that other side equally thinks they are just as right. The Christian thinks Jesus was the son of God and the Muslims think he was just a prophet, both sides somehow think they are right and are directed by God? What makes you right and them wrong? Many people on both sides claim God/Jesus/Holy Spirit talks directly to them, you'd think God would tell one side they were wrong.
I certainly do see you as an individual and word my question to you differently then most just as you would to me and JM.A lot of people do understand that the other sides equally think that they are right. The unfortunate thing is that environment and people at times teach things as absolute truth even if it is philosophical. And not all of us think beyond a shadow of doubt that our "right" is universal. Some of us view our "right" as actually "right for the individual" instead of the collective.
Let me tread lightly here... For some, the Holy Spirit does "talk" directly to them, but not in the way you are presenting it. The bible teaches Holy Spirit is more of a moral guide in our decision making.. The secular world refers to it as a conscience. Now with God or Jesus talking directly to some people... Well, I can't speculate on what goes on in someone else's head in that regard, but I personally do not have any conversations where God or Jesus speak directly to me (so Sorry, I can't tell you what street you lived on in 1980...LOL)Sorry, I'm aware not all are like those who do make these claims. I'm speaking to those who do of course and you are not one of them. I can align myself much closer to your understanding as it was the same as I was taught and I once had and to be honest it makes the most logical sense if one is to believe, but it's the others who claim to speak directly to God in some way that fascinates me.
Those same folks who were indoctrinated to believe an absolute truth can't even agree with others who have also been indoctrinated to believe an absolute truth. In fact, there are millions upon millions of various individual absolute truths that believers cannot agree upon.
Yet, we take a concept such as Relativity or Electromagnet Radiation or a plethora of other theories and find everyone who understands them agrees.You get absolutely zero argument from me there
+1 for the most part.. but a lot of that admittedly is Greek to me, but I do not dismiss itWell, I'll let you know when I have a complete understand of relativity. That's not an easy concept to grasp and to be honest I get it once I've studied it, but I'm later a little lost about the concept so I can see how a good percentage of the population has no understanding of how time works and how gravity works and how they intermingle.
Agreed, certainly I wasn't able to understand it overnight, it took time, rigor and effort. But, that is the entire point of understanding how our universe works, to take the time to understand the theories that describe it.
I would highly recommend working on understanding Special Relativity, first. Although a subset of General Relativity, it will help you to understand the basics and change your entire view of how things work, simply because the concept of SR is counter-intuitive to how we view the world.
It is similar to our view when we look out our windows and see the world as being flat, when it is in fact spherical.I do have a reasonable understanding, however not at all on the level that I could or should. When studied I understand it better, but a while later some of it gets lost. Much like when I explain to someone how masks and layers in photoshop work and then 2 days later they ask for clarification or just ask me to do it.
I agree completely with you. We can never be angry with someone for believing different. Unless of course there belief is causes them to harm others. I still hold to the notion however that I wouldn't never believe something I didn't think was truth. I know many people in religion believe with a blind faith. Even and at times especially Christians in many cases unfortunately. I know myself and many other believe it to be truth however because there is evidence for it. Historical, archaeological, philosophical evidence. Historical and archaeological evidences are a form of science in a way. So I also hold to the believe that these things can be known for certain.
If Christians could present any evidence whatsoever apart from feelings and unverifiable personal experiences, you would have accomplished more than most believers have managed in over two thousand years.
Let's have your evidence, then.Really? Christians have accomplished nothing other than presenting unverifiable feelings for over two thousand years?
"The just shall live by faith, not by works alone"
Jesus is the only way!
.
This is what Jesus taught, there is no hidden meaning here, not a mystery.
A person may be doing all the good things, but their good works cannot qualify them to enter the kingdom of God. It is written clearly in the BibleYes that's true!
W need both...
But to say that one could go to heaven simply by doing good works without faith in what God did through Christ is not Biblical.I am sure God will never make a mistake.
If there is any other way apart from Christ, then I don't think The Bible will tell us to share the good news with the people of all the nations.This isn't answering my question, but you opened up another question.. If God will never make a mistake, then you will be able to accept it if an atheist should happen to get into heaven, right?
The bible tells us to share the word of God and the good news of Christ. If we are to share the word, we must share the WHOLE word. It's okay to share the word of repent and be baptized. It's okay to share that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life...(you know the rest). It is especially okay to share that Christ died, was buried, and rose again with all power in his hand for our sins (Which says that Christ will intercede on our behalf in heaven). But with everything else, we also CANNOT omit that the final word and judgment belongs to God. For us to omit this part of the Bible would be to enforce what WE want others to do along with placing our own judgment of what we think others should get.
Yes God will never make a mistake.
But I am sure you know it very well that there is freedom of choice. We are not created like a robot. We are given the freedom of choice.
Atheist can get to heaven, because God opened the way through Jesus!
If they choose to follow HIm!
Yes God will be the final judge.
Those who don't follow Him will be thrown into the lake of fire...Good. You acknowledge that God doesn't make mistakes in his decision as to who will get in and who won't. This is a good stance to make and keeps one open minded enough to be inclusive of all people regardless of differences.
Of course. Anyone, at anytime (even up to the time of Judgment) Can choose to accept or reject what is offered to them.
By adding this clause, you have narrowed the possibility from being inclusive to exclusive..
If you truly believe this, then there should not be any conditions placed on God's final judgment. To add that clause in limits the authority of God.Deepes, you're starting to sound like a Christian ATM.
The hell you say, Rad!
People lose sight of the facts that ATM often makes valid points.If you are referring to the machine that dispenses wealth, I'm good with that (even if it is the wealth of perspective and wisdom).. If you are talking about the hubber, I respect him because He does make some decent points (at least when he talks to me) in the middle of the ridicule, outside of that, let me quote one of his favorite quotes...
Rubbish (or should I use baloney?)Hahaha
I have just go up and lit the fire for some hot water... that made my day, Rad Man!
Good morning Deepes, Soldout, Mo
Another question, though. What about a young family who has never traveled from their home and therefore has never had the chance to share the word of God with people that they believe live in heathen cultures? Will they be condemned for all the souls "they" didn't save, or will our God, who created and loves us ALL make provisions for those "heathen" folks and bring them to Him? Or are they all just going to hell because that young family never had the opportunity to tell them the good news?
There are, even in our technologically advanced age, those who have never, and will never, know about Jesus. Do you think we must take responsibility for that and be condemned, or do you think our God is more concerned with us following Him than in our telling others to do it in fear of hell?
Yes, the Bible is the word of God, but it is NOT His final word.
And those who do follow Him, and make the law too heavy for anyone to bear will suffer the same fate? We are not God and we do not know the mind of God, or the hearts of His people, well enough to pass judgment on anyone!
Well I am not talking about those who have never heard the gospel.
Here I am referring to those people who have heard the gospel but still choose to go their own way.....If we were to look at the world, that would about 70% of the population that didn't choose the gospel.
But what about those who hear the Gospel according to me? Or according to Deepes? Will they make it to heaven or only those who hear your version? The point I am making here is that actively showing the love of God is more productive than just talking to people about it and then acting as the arbiter of whether or not they've "truly" accepted it-according to your interpreted standard.
Version? How many bible are there? I'm assuming you're all using the same book with the same words. Does that mean that superficiality reigns? In other words, is hearing the gospel all about sensationalism and charisma?
I would argue that showing respect for the wants and needs of others is far more productive than showing the false love of gods.Hmm. It's been a while since we wen back and forth, but I think kindness and compassion are traits of God and so, when I show love and compassion and kindness to others, it's because I've received it first. From the God I believe in. Ultimately, does it matter what my motivation is if it's given with no condition or expectation of return?
As to versions...ATM, you know as well as I do that no two Christians interpret the Bible the same way. That's why I think aggressive evangelization is so wrong.
Btw, how have you been?Interestingly enough, evolution shows how many such traits actually evolved in humans and other animals. Imsc, you do agree with evidence for evolution, right?
Every single human being was born with kindness and compassionate traits, received through the genetics of their parents. Without them, natural selection would probably have us extinct by now.
I've often said before that the motivation and expectation of return is that of getting in good with the big guy, it is usually an act of selfishness, which could also be viewed as a simple intuitive act of self-preservation, too.
The point is that we don't need to ascribe a third party to preclude our genetics, thus automatically diminishing all motives and expectations.
Agreed, but the problem is how the Bible is interpreted so many ways. Have you ever noticed that most non-believers agree on what's written in the bible, simply because they take at face value that which is written there?
Excellent, thank you for asking. I've been traveling, golfing and visiting old friends and family, which proved to be vastly exhilarating, productive and joyful. An earth shattering event occurred while I was away, leaving me deliriously happy, enlightened and fulfilled.
How about yourself?I am aware of many of the facts of evolution, not all of them. I see the point you're making, though, that all of us are indeed capable of kindness and compassion, and in that, you have my ultimate agreement. I don't necessarily believe that my ultimate motivation IS selfish, but from your side, as a nonbeliever, I can understand how it appears such. Keep in mind, though, that I was specifically addressing a believer about the better means of sharing one's faith.
In the end, this is why I prefer to leave the discussion of what's in Scripture to others. I cannot deny that I interpret it differently from others-both those who do and do not believe in its veracity. There is too much in it that is too open to interpretation. But everyone seems to ignore its historical and linguistic context. Well, not everyone. That's an unfair generalization.
I suppose that at the end of the day, what I was trying to illustrate to soldout is that people don't want to hear a message that you aren't demonstrating in action. And that a good number of us think that hardcore, wordy evangelization isn't Christlike behavior.
I'm so glad things have been going well for you! Been missing you around here. If you ever want to share, I would love to know what's made you so happy. For now, I'm just glad you are!
Things haven't been as great here, but we're safe, healthy, and together. I'm pleased with that.I mentioned in another Hub that a book I am reading right now, called "The Bonobo and the Atheist, In Search of Humanism among the Primates," by Frans de Waal, is a most fascinating and enlightening book. Recommended in the context of your post, ATM.
Soldout, Are you familiar with the parable of the prodigal son?
What do you mean by go their own way. Let's just say someone lives a life as close as he can to the way Jesus describes but just doesn't believe in God. Does that matter to God? Because if it's as you say and he meets God face to face he will have to believe then, so what does believing matter? Or does you version of God Need the worship? Is he that needy?
So, thereby you judge me to Hell, Soldout. Right?
Yes very much!
But you know not all prodigals make it back home safely, only those who are willing to humble themselves make it home safe.
That is the example for people who think they are too sinful to be forgiven. God loves them. NO matter what you did, if you repent you will always be forgiven.Indeed. There was a resentful and envious older brother who didn't feel his brother deserved forgiveness.
Amen, sister. Where were the Christians like you guys when I was a believer?
We were here, but our voices get drowned out by the hardcore "turn or burn" evangelists
Deepes, that's what I was going to say.
Maybe we should have been talking louder this whole time.Banned for trying to steal my thoughts...LOL
Good thing we have HP so that our voices can be heard and we can be represented in a manner that helps to change the view of Christianity in general and Christians in particular. We still have a long way to go, but the seeds are being sown
HI mo!
It's not about my version or your version.
But the bible version..
simple message..
Come to the cross!
Only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us from our sins, and not any amount of good works that we do or we can do.
Our good works are as filthy rags.
I am sure your version is no different from this.And I read the same bible and believe that faith without works is dead.
Do you tell people that part?Perhaps you tell yourself that so you don't need to be a good person to get eternal life. Interesting how the mind works.
No, soldout777, Your interpretation of the bible version.... a big difference. And there are so many other versions from so many other zealots that yours is just one amongst them.
Step back and let people make their choice and please stop constricting your god.
Deepes.
No one here is like the elder brother in the story, !
Do you think I will be angry when a unbeliever who has spent his life sinning, come to Christ and receive forgiveness. I'll celebrate with him
God is the final Judge, but He has also given us all the things we need to know to live a good Christian while on Earth.
We'll be judged for whatever we do here on Earth.
Jesus is the only way!
No other way....
I would love to hear from you if you can find anything in the Bible which promise us salvation apart from Christ!Do you want to take another look at the story? You look at the story that the older brother was jealous that the father threw a party for the prodigal and not him because he stayed home and was still doing the work of the father. Let's take another look at it like this. Have you considered that the older brother could have felt that since the prodigal left the father's house that he felt that the prodigal was not entitled to any more blessings from the father? As Christians, some (not saying you do this, but some of your posts do suggest this at times) do believe that the atheists do not deserve the blessings of God and that God is not blessing them because they are atheist. I disagree with this belief. The bible states that God reigns on the just AND the unjust. As a Christian, we should be believing that even allowing us to wake up every morning is a blessing from God.
That's good to hear, But you are also saying that unless they do certain things, they should not get any blessings from God. This is like the older brother in that you are saying that they have forfeited any claim on any blessings at all.
He give us all we need to live a good life. and there are atheists who believe in living a good life as according to the morals and principles contained in the bible, yet you are also stating that they are not doing good enough. On the flip side, your statements also imply that Christians who live a good life according to the bible and follow Christ are guaranteed to get into heaven, yet the Bible states that there are some Believers that will not be entering into the gates of heaven because God will judge the heart and intentions of the person doing the works as well as the works themselves. in other words, just like when the father told the older brother he was pleased that the prodigal returned. Ultimately, it didn't matter what the son said, the final word on what happens belonged to the FATHER!
Exactly my point. Christ's death already paved the way for us to get to the father. it is up to everyone to follow that example and do good works while here on earth because God will judge us by the fruits of our labor as well as the intentions behind that labor. You said you have atheist friends. Do you see them doing a lot of evil and crazy things or do you see them doing good works and living a good life? If you are saying that you have friends that are amoral by your standards of morality, then you are still in trouble because the bible says that you should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.
Yes Jonny!
Mine is very different from others, because I shared the gospel as it is!!Soldout, the only thing perverted around here is YOUR mind. It has been perverted by the "holy" men and women you associate with. You can change that if you wish!
And I also share the gospel as it is written (and you agreed that I do), yet you and Beth have accused me of twisting the word and watering it down in an effort to be liked rather than as it is written in the bible. You cannot judge my methods to be incorrect when the Gospel shows where and how Christ was doing the same things to others.
You and I have different methods. Your method is not any better than mine nor is my methods better than yours. we both are acting in accordance with what is written in the Bible. We just do it in different ways based on how the word resonates best within us.
That is how many holy wars started, folks like yourself who expressed their religion as absolute truth.d Many have fighting over their "absolute truths" for centuries.
If you prefaced your statement with "I believe that...." then I would respect it as your own opinion. However, a direct statement that puts your view as absolute truth, for everyone else to accept, does not sit well with me.
But then I don't suppose that will matter to you in the least. So be it.Do you not believe in absolute truth then? Or is it just the specific statement that i made?
I don't even like that expression "believe in." What do you mean by it?
Absolute truth? What are you worried about? Why concentrate on such a concept? Where will it get you for spending so much time on it? Especially when any understanding of it will be coloured by your own perceptions.thats funny you say you dont like the term believe in. in your first response to me you said "If you prefaced your statement with "I believe that...." then I would respect it as your own opinion." Is there a difference between believe in and believe that?
Sure. I did say that. "I believe that...." but the expression "believe in...." implies a religious involvement and tends to, in my opinion, to require a sort of acceptance that what is being put over must be swallowed by the recipient.... you don't hear this expression outside of the christian religion. This is what I object to.... the christian saying this to me is really saying, "This is what you need to believe in....." It's an imposition upon me. Sorry if I am getting tied up in words here. I find it difficult to express what I mean, hoping you will understand.
Whereas simply "believing that..." becomes your own expression, keeps it personal to yourself.... and this is what I do accept, because I respect your choice.... as long as I am not dragged into your personal need.lol. i understand getting tied up in ones own words. i find it difficult many times to express what im trying to say. I dont think believe in is a christian term. i have heard atheist use this terms when trying to explain morality. to be honest im a little lost though on when and how i used this term that got this conversation started.
The only truths we have are those discovered by science. Religions offer few if any truths.
Is it true that only science can be used to discover truth? if so explain to me how science can show this statement to be true.
Science, in simple terms, is a quest. In elaborate terms, science is a method by which we arrive at a rational conclusion based on facts using rational and logical means.
Religion on the other hand is simply believing what the other person says is true and the other person is usually a priest who is either deluded or is trying to achieve power(by manipulation) or both.
Or simply,
Science is reaching a conclusion from premises(facts) while religion is finding premises that can fit the conclusion.
So yes, "truth" can only be reached by science.Science is a Quest. Yes!
How can anyone say God does not exist, or belief in God is not a wise thing?
Science is still in the quest, no conclusions and answers to so many questions...
All things come from God...
One day science will point you to God, ....
check out this article
http://raitudisong.hubpages.com/hub/God … e-Who-winsBecause "god" is an idiotic nonsensical explanation put forward by ignorant foolish priests or charlatans who wants power and money. Believing nonsense is not a wise thing.
If you care to look for there are many answers and if you try using your intellectual faculties, you yourself can reach most answers.
That is a claim with no rational basis.
Science will never point towards ignorance and nonsense, hence this too is a nonsensical claim.
This is one of the most idiotic hubs I have ever read, I even wonder whether the author has ever read anything other that what is written by priests or whether he ever think for himself instead of "following like a sheep".To quote the author himself, "There is a saying “little knowledge is dangerous” which is a fitting line".Science has never pointed to and gods, and as time marches on and we learn more every day, we find science continues to point in other directions, none of them having anything to do with gods.
the statement that only science can be used to discover truth.
"The scientific method" would be the better choice of words.
Ok. but that still doesnt explain anything.
Well, what is the reason for using the scientific method? I mean, I could tell you the steps that is uses, but the more important aspect of it is it's goal and the process by which it reaches that goal. What's important is the ability to be objective and to follow logical processes to come to accurate conclusions. How can you make an honest statement or discover truth without these two components?
You can accuse me of murder, but it doesn't matter how much you feel it's true, I should only be convicted if it becomes known that I'm a murderer without a shadow of a doubt. And the only way that can happen is by being objective and following logical processes. (Looking at valid/direct and corroborating evidence and making informed opinions based on that evidence, making sure the evidence actually holds up, and isn't purely anecdotal and/or circumstantial.)
Same thing with religion. It doesn't matter how much you feel it's true, without the proper evidence, you can't say it is true, simply that you believe that it could be true, but, you cannot know.
Do you know what an Agnostic really is? (Not the common incorrect definition of an Agnostic that's really closer to the definition of a "deist.")I agree with most of what you said. I just didnt think it helped much to say use this term instead. The only thing I guess I would disagree with you on though is that circumstantial evidence can actually be used to make a very strong case. Lots of cold cases are solved this way. obviously because after 30-40 yrs many eyewitnesses or even the accused may be around any longer. I would say agnostic either says you dont know or cant know something. Unless you have a different definition of it. Which brings me to something I like to do, but can be a bit of a hypocrite about. Whenever discussing issues that we disagree on, its always good to establish definitions of certain words, so we dont misrepresent each others views.
The reason I used corroborated evidence as being more appropriate is because it is a collection of circumstantial evidence that can be used to make an inference when all other explanations are ruled out. So, I'm quite aware that circumstantial evidence can be helpful in finding truth. But when the only evidence is circumstantial, and there are many inferences that can be made and none of the other explanations have been ruled out, it is not seen as solid evidence to be used in a case.
Exactly, which is why I wanted to know what you thought it meant before I went any further. Because so many people think that either we believe in a god, we just can't decide which one, or that we believe it's possible a god started everything and then moved on or doesn't interact with us. The latter definition is a deist. I'm not even sure about the first definition. That might be a theist that hasn't adhered to any religion, actually.
Anyway, I can't even remember why I brought it up in the first place. LoL.
But, science has always been the way to discover truth. What other methods are used for that purpose?
not sure i have a name for it. If i may just give an example. If you had a dog named sparky and I said I didnt believe you. Using science, how would you provide for me the truth, that you actually do have a dog named sparky?
- We're talking about science, not kindergarten schoolyard games.
Well, it'd be quite simple. I would invite you to my home. Sparky, with his dog tag displaying "Sparky," would excitedly greet you when walk in the door. I'll show you pictures and videos of our interactions together as pet and owner. And when I sit down, he'll likely come and sit at my feet. At this point, there's no real need to doubt he's my pet. I'll tell you to call him yourself. You say "here, Sparky" and he comes. So 1) We can see, hear, and probably smell that he's a dog. 2) His dog tag says sparky, he responds to sparky, and if I'm close with my neighbors, they'll likely know his name is Sparky. 3) I've shown you all the evidence of us together. Pictures, videos, and just how he responds to me and I to him. 4) We know the definition of pet.
Of course, no one would go through all of this for something like a pet. But this is an example of how we could know that I have a dog named Sparky.Isn't it somewhat odd one would have to actually spend the time explaining that simple concept to adults.
There are many forms of science. Did you know that Theology is in Websters as "The study of the religion"? Just like the science of astronomy, physiology, physics or physical science...
Science is also it's own religion in many ways. You believe in science as the provider of all truth the same way a Christian believes that Christ is The Way The Truth and The Life and no man comes to the Father except through Christ. So if you say science is the only source of truth you must be including Theological sciences as well or to the very least Sociological Sciences otherwise you are picking and choosing your sciences as this one provides truth but that one does not. In any case it is faith under a different covering as you believe that a labcoat is the vestment of your faith.Sorry, but theology is not a science, it is a philosophy. It has nothing to do with astronomy or physics or any other science.
That is just silly.
Is that a joke? It would appear you know nothing about science. I don't hold beliefs, I embrace understanding, which is what science provides me, an understanding of how things work.
Religion is nothing but myths and superstitions.
God does not like to watch suffering, God actually turns his back on the sin of Man because he is separate from it and not present in it. Yes I understand that this negates the precept of an omnipresent God, but in the case before us omnipresence is the ability of God to be in all places at all times. If in the moment of sin, a person stops and prays for intersession then God is present in that and still separate from the sin. This is an advanced concept know, but follow it through. Man has freewill, but man chooses to do evil with this gift much like a child gets a toy gun for Christmas and uses it to beat their smaller siblings or he can choose to play with it as God intended as the good Father. If we think of God in these terms as the good parent figure we can understand much more deeply how the nature of the universe works.
- Sooner28posted 11 years ago
0A careful atheist will not say suffering is an argument against the existence of God; she will say gratuitous suffering is an argument against the existence of a GOOD God. This leaves open the possibility of an amoral God, and an immoral God.
Psychologically, most people won't believe in an amoral or immoral God, so generally if the atheist can win the argument, the believer will give up believing in God.Trying to prove god is something or not is like trying to prove Adam was a chimpanzee.
Psychologically people have grown up terrified of either Hell or the boogeyman. Belief in a deity or deities is optional. It's all an attempt at behavior modification.
I suspect that the universe can't exist without polarity, which includes "good" and "bad". One thing I KNOW is that God gave humans a built in moral compass, a concious. We inately know right from wrong. Maybe God is something like us. Capable of both good and bad.
Nope, the universe is entirely indifferent about good and bad.
Nope, those are the results of evolution.You know, the ones we're always trying to get through to you, but you just ignore them in favor of your belief system.
There is no actual theory of evolution. You do realize that, don't you? Any real evidence "supporting" evolution doesn't fit,or flatly contradicts your "theory". Evolution is a farse.
The funniest thing is that, if asked, you would not even be able to tell me what the theory of evolution IS.
Go ahead. Try.Sorry, But I am a Christian and I know evolution isn't a farce. researching this information will get you information of how over time it works.
I have researched it extensively, thanks. That's one of the reson's I know it's crap.
Please, why don't YOU give it a shot? Explain evolution to me.
I bet you could explain quantum mechanics without a problem. Or relativity. Those are actual theories. Evolution isn't.God created man !
It is as simple as that..(for the believers)
Evolution theory:
Apes are our ancestors. one day we may evolve into apes again after millions and millions and millions of years!!That is why they are called 'believers', fools who blindly believe what the priests taught them.
Why do you want to show your ignorance in public?
Apes are tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea. Hominoidea contains two families of living species, Hylobatidae and Hominidae. Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.
See, we are apes , so what is the evolving into apes?No I am a human being!
I can prove it lol!
In other words, chimpanzees are humans with tails! - your version...That is one uneducated monkey you got there. lol
Yes according to the theory of evolution!
They are humans evolving into a super monkey ha ha
Monkeys are from the family of apes..
Apes are from the family of monkeys...
Anything can happen, according to the theory of evolution..!!
One day humans will evolve into a hippopotamus, who knows?
Just a matter of time!This is exactly what the Evolution theory is teaching!
So what is your problem here??
Please prove it then.
Have you got a tail?
I'll try to make you understand with an example, a 'german shepherd' is a dog, only fools will say german shepherd will evolve to become dog. Similarly humans are apes, so whether humans will evolve or not, humans are apes as long as they are humans.Humans are apes?
So apes are humans too....!
Why are they so stupid???That is not sound logic, soldout. Just because humans are a species of ape does not mean all apes are human.....
Are you referring to human apes or another species of ape? Stupid? By who's judgment?
Apparently they are more intelligent than believers!
It seems you don't know what an ape is, so until you do, you can't really take part in the conversation... Humans are a type of ape. When you hear ape, you likely think "gorilla," but they are not the only apes... Orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans are all int he ape category in the animal kingdom. He is saying that as long as someone is a human, they are a type of ape. Doesn't mean that any of those animals are as smart or cognitively aware, nor as advanced as we are, although they are some of the more intelligent species of animal. But before you call someone stupid, at least know what they're talking about.
I was replying to riddle666,
He mentioned,
Humans are apes!
So apes are human... according to him,
As simple as that...
Human apes. In fact we are the only form of ape that has invented for itself a "god."
All the other species of ape seem to do quite well without one.Ok there are human apes.... and humans!
I am a human!
not a human apes!
Apes don't need God....Well,
Humans need God!
Some chose to ignore it. that is all...
I'm not sure which of those statements beats out the other in pure absurdity.
Actually, the theory of evolution does not say that humans came from apes. It says that humans and apes share a common ancestor. There is a difference. Humans are not going to evolve into an ape at any time
That living organisms (species, not individuals) change over time. Time perhaps best measured in generations, not minutes, hours or even centuries.
How's that?That is not the theory of evolution. That is just a vague observation.
How odd! And here I've thought all these years that that's what Darwin was speaking about in Origin of Species; that species change over time. He observed similar, yet different species and theorized that either one changed into the other or that they both changed from a common ancestor.
What do you think Darwin was discussing? The origin of life itself?
Yes, I totally understand you have no idea what evolution entails. It's too bad you have to fabricate lies just to defend your faith.
You are funny once again. You actually BELIEVE the drivel they feed you. Kind of like a monkey. (You're ancestor, I presume)
I don't believe anything, but I understand the theory and the supporting evidence. That's why I accept it as fact, just like anyone else who understands it. I would have to willfully and stubbornly in denial to understand it all and reject it.
Gosh, that's clever.janesix, apparaently you are a puppet on a string....who pulls the strings?
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
A simple google search will give you what you look for.
The Theory of evolution is still unproven by the scientific method and therefore still is not proven as fact no matter how many evolutionists claim it to be the unalterable truth. I would post links but there would always be at least one "missing link". Sorry could not help myself.
You can't post any links because your claim is utterly false.
I was thinking of the theory of evolution the other day and was just thinking...who is our common ancestor with the apes?
Are you not capable of doing your own research?
Yes, I have read and understood the evidence regarding our ancestors. You should, too.
So tell me this evidence you understand regarding our ancestors? What's our common ancestor?
- Have seen his photo somewhere, but can't think of his name right now.....
Lucy is far from being factual proof of being our common ancestor. Why should I take seriously the founder of Lucy naming her after Lucifer? He named it after the Beatles song, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,”
The evidence shows that Lucy is more likely just a chimp and that Johanson was just looking for fame and fortune.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont … article=76
Johanson said:
In regard to Lucy’s pelvis, Johanson affirmed:
"Lucy’s wider sacrum and shallower pelvis gave her a smaller, kidney-shaped birth canal, compared to that of modern females. She didn’t need a large one because her newborn infant’s brain wouldn’t have been any larger than a chimpanzee infant’s brain (Johanson, et al., 1994, p. 66)."
Implying a chimp, of course.
http://www.bestbiblescience.org/evid4.htmSurely that is not a logical conclusion, Claire. It might fit your preconception, and bias but not the facts.
Again, your obsession with Satan comes into play.
Having a small brain does not mean it was a chimp, it simply means it had a small brain. Imagine if you will a time when humans and chimps became isolated. Two separate groups the same but isolated, they would of course at first have the same size brain. Much like the chimp and the bonobo, they were not long ago the same, but isolation and a separate environment has caused change.The "hobbits" had small brains,and are thought to be nearly human like in intelligence.
Wow! I learn something new every day, thanks. And here was me thinking of the Lord of the Ring!
They are pretty fascinating. They were hominids that only died out 13000 years ago,and lived alongside modern humans
What a pity! I have just the place they would be comfortable here: a lovely forest, beautiful greenery, big tree roots, covered in moss and lichen, - you know the sort of thing? Remember where the Hobbits used to emerge from in Lord of the Rings? And they could do all the gardening for me!
I didn't name Lucy after Lucifer. Ask him why he did that.
So how did our common ancestor go from having a small brain when the neanderthal had a big brain and then homo sapians went back to having a smaller brain?
What is it about Lucy that one can come to a conclusion that she is our common ancestor? Why would you consider it as fact? In other words, irrefutable evidence that she is our common ancestor. Why should I believe it when there have been hoaxes like the Piltman?We did not evolve from Neanderthals, neither did we coexist with them. We did not 'go back' to having a smaller brain because they're a different species.
From: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2013/130313.html
''Neanderthal brains were adapted to allow them to see better and maintain larger bodies''
''larger areas of the Neanderthal brain, compared to the modern human brain, were given over to vision and movement and this left less room for the higher level thinking required to form large social groups''
I think you should do some research before asking such questions. I found this after 3 seconds of Googling.
You're citing 'christian science' websites where they make false statements because they're biased towards their religion . Scientists on the other hand don't have a bias concerning their beliefs. They go wherever the evidence takes them.
About lucy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
Also this website is mainly for creationists so they can understand things like evolution but you can find information about a lot of stuff. Here's some evidence for human evolution: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/Scientists aren't biased? You cannot be serious!! You don't they are capable of interpreting evidence in the way they see fit especially when it will bring money?
You need to read this:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm
Another conspiracy site, not at all wasting your time eh?Claire, although I would agree that scientific data is often wrongfully manipulated in order to support policy I think it is a stretch to claim science to be a big conspiracy to control the masses. Most of those within the three branches of our government do not have scientific backgrounds. Please name a nation controlled by scientists. I would think, we should be suspicious of the lawyers; not the scientists. If there is a pocket of evil freemasonry attempting to enslave the world; I would bet the lawyers are not only complicit, but actively involved.
Science is a thirst for knowledge. You, too, can be a scientist if you choose. You don't have to sell your soul to the devil or go through any secret rituals in order to join the club. Check out your local institution of higher education. They aren't stealing souls. They are broadening minds.If that sort of stuff interests you Claire, you choice, and you are entitled to it. It baffles me how you come across these sites.
Lucy lived between 3.22 and 3.18 million years ago. She looked somewhat like a chimp however the pelvis and leg bones were almost identical to a humans. Meaning of course that to find a common ancestor we may have to go back a little farther, possible Ardipithecus.
Neanderthals came much later and evidence shows all humans outside Africa contain various amounts of Neanderthal DNA and with Neanderthals we are talking thousands of years ago, not millions.First of all, Lucy's knee was found quite a way off from the rest of the skeleton, i.e, 2 and a half kms and a year earlier to the rest of the skeleton. This is shoddy science. You can't just go and assume that the knee belonged to Lucy. And that bone is necessary to determine if she was capable of upright bipedal posture.
This is kind of what fossil analysing is like:
"Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a 3-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in which most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!" Famous Paleontologist Richard Leakey.
"There is a strong tendency for fossils to be presented as if they were lucid texts to be read unambiguously rather than scrappy fragments of unknown morphologies." Famous Paleontologist Misia Landau upon realizing how poor the fossil evidence was. ([14], p.?)
Some evolutionists doubt this Lucy also:
Dr.
Charles Oxnard (University of Western Australia) completed the most sophisticated
computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the
australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are
simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human
Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
Johanson made a lot of money because of Lucy. Sound like some Christian charlatans living off the gullibility of people?Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you do a little research on human evolution and the evidence that supports it. Do you really think it's a coincidence that we share some 96% of DNA with chimps?
Why haven't you addressed the content of my comment? Don't change the subject.
from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html
Charles Oxnard (1975), in a paper that is widely cited by creationists, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Howell et al.(1978) criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes.I wonder if, despite any or all of the scientific research which is carried out by diligent and conscientious people, "opinion" will only be based upon what individuals want to believe. In other words all evidence must support a prejudiced view.
No. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. We do have some actual research and repeatable tests that do not rely on "opinion." The fact that I can repeat a test and get the same results negates "opinion."
And since when is an opinion "prejudiced." If the facts suggest holding a particular opinion - such as evolutionary biology being true - does this make it "prejudice,"?
And you don't think scientists who are pro evolution base conclusions on scant fossils?
And address the rest of my comment please.@claire Why is Lucy so important? Even if it was proved that she was a fake (which it isn't) what would that mean ? You think that it would disprove evolution?
The fossil record is the weakest evidence that evolution is true, but it's taught first because it's easier to understand. Also, it's astonishing that we even have any fossils because the conditions have to be very specific for something to be fossilized.
The most compelling evidence is DNA. Carl Sagan said that even if we didn't have a single fossil, then evolution would be equally valid. DNA tells us how closely related we are with other animals. We have 98% the same DNA with other apes. That's how we know we had a common ancestor. If you compare DNA with all animals you will end up having a family tree leading back to a single cell organism.
And this has been done with many animals and they all lead to the same ancestor. So that's how we know it's true. Because different scientists reached to the same conclusion.
If you're really interested in learning about the theory of Evolution then here's a documentary with Richard Dawkins. He's a biologist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok_tcAEbHHw
And theology cannot be proven by the scientific method.......
Possibly because there is nothing out there to observe, test or show to anyone else?
Like you say, possibly...and you know what posibly means? It does not mean probably nor is any definitive on it
You misunderstand. I was a little sarcastic, but the fact that no god I've ever seen described can be tested by the scientific method.
That method, simply put, requires the following steps:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
While the question can be asked, it pretty much ends there. There can be no research of a thing that cannot be detected, except by observing actions attributed to that thing and to do that requires that such actions cannot be accomplished by other methods; something that is very, very difficult to accomplish.
A hypothesis can be formulated, but testing that hypothesis is impossible as god cannot be detected and thus cannot be tested. Without test results, no conclusion can be drawn.
Results can be communicated to others, but implicit in that is that others can repeat the tests and that cannot be done.
So god (or most other theology) cannot be proven by the scientific method.@wilderness "There can be no research of a thing that cannot be detected, except by observing actions attributed to that thing and to do that requires that such actions cannot be accomplished by other methods; something that is very, very difficult to accomplish."
Very well put, thank you! By the same token, would you consider the advances to find the 4th element in particle physics be a lost project? It exhibits all of the qualities you mention in your reply which I paste here "
There can be no research of a thing that cannot be detected, except by observing actions"
other than the obstacles you just mentioned, God still has not been proved to be or not to be...it still is the question (Shakespeare dixit)
Because the supernatural is not testable. Ghosts can't be replicated in a laboratory, God won't cooperate with repeated experiments, and Bigfoot refuses to sit down and be analyzed.
@Zelkiro "Ghosts can't be replicated in a laboratory, God won't cooperate with repeated experiments, and Bigfoot refuses to sit down and be analyzed."
Then, I think that, by the same token, particles physicists, promised but not yet able to 'get' the fourth element, then can conclude that the 4th element (Higgs bossom) doe snot exust? It's been hard physicaaly to replicate in the actual experiment the much needed acceleration (and etc) and Mr. Higgs stuff is being misbehavinf or like you nicely pur it as if, and as if, God will not cooperate...Higgs is not cooperating? but still we must believe Science when it promises? or is it a scientist limitation that hopefully one of these days (since promised it's been a loooong long time and it hurts I can tell)...I cannot tell either way and you too can't tell either way...so farYou don't see anyone praying to the higgs particle. You don't see anyone relaying that loving the higgs particle will get you everlasting life in heaven and not believing will get you hell fire.
It's quite bizarre that "god" is depicted as of the spirit, i.e., invisible, all pervading, creating and controlling our lives yet, after our death, is going to inflict punishment upon each of us in ways that could only be experienced in the flesh so to speak. Such punishment can only be experienced if we retain the body, the skin, the nerve system, the awareness, the pain, the anguish and THE GUILT!
No christian that believes in this eternal punishment can describe to you, unquestionably, how their god is going to punish. They can harp back to the ancient ideas about hell, fire and brimstone.....eternal fire.....banishment from the kingdom, etc. And, if pressed will probably give some theoretical idea about "separation from god." Yet it is all just that: theory.
Now puella rants on and on about science being all theory. But at least in scientific exploration you can admit freely that it's all theory until something gets proven. With religion it can NEVER get proven! Thus open to individual interpretation, without the threat of being proven wrong Hardly a level playing field.
When I give respect to a christian's point of view, without feeling I have to go along with his/her ideas (beliefs), do I get the same respect in return? Not usually, although there are some extremely honest people who do and I treasure their input to my life!In a free lance interpretation, I can get to think, if I wanted and that wouln't be too extreme, that the obsession of science to prove God made up of the same 4 elements could qualify as an 'almost faith"...
I don't know about you but I am not aware of any funded scientific program trying to find what God is made of.
The "God particle" name was not literal. It just meant "really very important".
@Rad Man "You don't see anyone praying to the higgs particle. You don't see anyone relaying that loving the higgs particle will get you everlasting life in heaven and not believing will get you hell fire."
It all depends on how you 'define' praying, relaying, everlasting life, heaven (do you really consider heaven in an outer space or so?), or...hell (do you really understand the notion of 'hell'?) and all that jazz...
Regardless, if what science has to, yet, achieve, shows us that even God (you know, in the dreams of a final theory!) is made up of those four elements, it still will have to be a very 'particular' combination of those elements still, science has to make up a good, real good, configuration on how thousands of years after cromagnon, God keeps up in the life of many (read Popol Vuh, and other books about it)... same as higgs, a first creation made man of corn leaves...it showed way to weak, so then that god created a new man, and so forth..before the bible was known in the west world...Whatever God is, either 4 elemenst or more or less, still is here, He was before, and will be after all of this...unless you or somebody else proves us wrong and that, my dear, is been tried for too many people and too long a time and nothing yet...Even inf the bible is not true revelation (up to anybody to believe or not), that wouls not prove a thing...to me and to thousands...way before Jesus and after Jesus...
I have a correction to make: according to many interpretations somehow 'convenient', some pretend that Jesus is not God...well, Jesus IS God, that's why He resurrected, and resurrected others, and all of us from death of the spirit...not from the flesh which is the perishable portion of life. Thanks for the opportunity and respectful reply, Rad Man, indeed.The subject of suffering...The New York Times has today an editorial for the Noble Laureate Seamus Heaney, the poet who said interestingly about the root of suffering...and of whom, also, Jesus, devoted some good blessings...
here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/opini … p&_r=0
And really, how suffering has God as a culprit...it needs a good proof...If God's hands were in the cause of suffering, then those who hate Him should get more suffering? it's a logical fallacy!!! to blame God and also to ignore chance. So we, for one side, favour chance for universe origins, but find God guilty for negligence or indifference when of suffering we talk!!! we can't have both sides of the arguments if of argumentation we are about...no no no. I personally don't blame any God for anything as no God exists to blame. The fact that the bible is full of scripture telling us to ask and we shall receive, when no receiving is done negates what the bible says about prayer and negates what the bible says about God. If you negate what the bible says about God we are left with wishful thinking.
@Rad Man " The fact that the bible is full of scripture telling us to ask and we shall receive, when no receiving is done negates what the bible says about prayer and negates what the bible says about God. If you negate what the bible says about God we are left with wishful thinking."
But... do you realize, for real, that God does indeed provide? Oh I see...you expect that God 'must' provide in your terms? or in the one praying terms? well, I have not seen that written in the Bible...that He will hear as soon as we go on our knees to pray. Jesus did teach us to pray and He also said that He will be present when two or more gather for praying. Let me also 'inform you" that we do not only pray to ask! we also pray to give thanks! What for sure happens when we pray is that we know He will provide and we hang in there full of hope...and hope is the first answer to prayer...You do not know that because you have not experienced that. I believe that someone uh-hopeful must feel really desperate some times when life get harder than other times...
"when no receiving" is denegated becasue it will happen whenever God decides it's the time We pray, we ask, according to our needs...But He will provide according to our well being...not necessarily material well being...Many many times what He provides is way better, in the end, that what we were originally asking...Have you not heard or said that inspite of an unforeseen obstacle, that made us change our plans or expectations, in the end the results were much convenient or better??? That the Providence!!! always in a hard to decipher way much harder than, say, the math needed to compute actuarial risks
Do you think that anybody is born because mom and dad wanted? NO! there is a time to be born and a time to die...Have you not seen impressive cases of people who are supposedly to engage in whatever purpose, and for very particular reason, although those people really wanting or needing to engage, can't because some obtuse obstacle, then they find out that it was great to have had the obstacle because otherwise they could have had just died in whatever
Iengagement they were supposed to do? chance?no! not chance...There is a time to be born and a time to die...Still not understanding?
Matthew 21:21 "if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea', and it will be done"
Of all the studies that have been done to see if prayer works any more than a placebo, none have been shown to work. No mountains have been moved. Sure from time to time someone who is sick gets better, but statistically recovery is the same with or without prayer.Alas, poor wee Rad Man..... without that illusive "faith" and the ability to swallow make-believe you are lost, man! Doomed to spend eternity in that wonderful, exciting Hell.
Rad Man,
placebos are not supposed to be of significant consequences
do you really interpret "...moves mountains" to be a real physical one?how about interpreting that as a more of a metaphor? it will help!
3) statistically speaking you do not have the 'population' size of support to make such an statement! you are limited in your sample size, and in your attitude as a man of science
4) the same with miracles...if you can't digest that it's your limitation...not of the real fact
5) if you are not awed by he universe and can't for an instant think of beyond your senses, then , again, it's your limitation
6) do you really think that hell is fire? to me, it's a state of mind...
7) the fact that faith in people angers some here does not change the facts...If instead of anger, the so-self-called 'compassionate and humanist' people would, instead, honor that 'faith in fairness' out of 'anger' which contradicts fairness most of the times, the sound of the conversation would be more placebo-like and less inconsequent
8) any room for metaphors in your life?it's not a joke but, again, a subtle matter can generate such reactions...
but the point is, still remains that statistically you can't say that 'it' does not move mountains...just think of the capacity of forgiving your bross and siss at least seventy-seven seven times...please do not tell me that you do not see the figure of speech here; so, anygoes about life, giving n taking, but sometimes adds some not so wanted doings...there the metaphor makes life livable and any finds him-her-self forgiving ans/or being forgiven...freedom to start all over or roll over (beethoven
i find that the hell as 'fire' does not contribute at all with salvation...on the contrary; i find it to primitive in fact!...i rather the other implications of not being a good person...it really does not happen w/out a toll for the ill practitioner...that to me is a more 'elaborate' concep of hell together with encompassing the 'humans' aspects of it...
if still ir's not enough to explain villains...and their omnipresence since day one, even before the first before, so to speak, then we do not have to worry about hell somewhere else nor if its fire or the 7 plagues or else...what 4?In an orwellian mood, his quote comes to mind "Throughout recorded time... there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude towards one another, have varied from age to age: but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other. The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable."
History has demonstrated that the 'philosophy' behind this 'recursive process" is not religion-related, party-related, family-related, ethnia-related....but only "man's-self-serving interests"
You are correct. From Wikipedia: "The Higgs boson or Higgs particle is an elementary particle initially theorised in 1964,[6][7] and tentatively confirmed to exist on 14 March 2013"
Notice the "tentative" part? That's because the scientific method has not been completed. Other researchers have not confirmed it either by different tests or the same test a second time.In March 2013 the test failed..it did not accomplish , remember?
link? Wikipedia seems to think it was found on that date.
just post a query in yahoo and you'll see a pleyade of articles about the elusiveness of the most wanted proof
Found several. Seems you're right - the particle was found in 2012 but the experiment to reproduce it in 2013 failed.
Which goes back to what I said; the particle is only "tentatively" proven to exist. Until that first experiment can be duplicated, or other experiments used to show it, it will remain tentative.the experiments that discovered "a" kind/type of Higgs (there are 5 supposedly, but now with those results, they are not sure of how many!) and not 'the' Higgs boson expected to be found and for what, even when the consensus is that the Standard Model is on the right track with the empiricalities, still these physicists estimate that 'the' answer is to be most probably 'available' by 2015...
Of the abundant literature on the subject,.in the link wiki.answers.com I found this interesting question and its answer…intriguing, cautivating, and genuine answer…to a very unquestionably-reasonably logical question.
If the Big Bang came from a singularity, where did the singularity came from? The answer follows:
Big Bang The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory? * First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. * Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. * Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. * Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. Answer It is difficult to "look back into time" and answer a question like this. There are several different ideas floating among astrophysicists. The idea of strings as a source for the Big Bang is one hypothesis, but is currently untestable. The lion's share of the ideas we have concerning the origin of the universe at time zero are all based in mathematical models. Multi-dimensional manifolds set out what happened the instant space and time began to be created here and spacetime unfolded into the universe we know today. Answer For all the tap dancing, posturing and brilliant calculations being put forth, the short answer in that no one has the faintest idea. Something does not suddenly appear from nothing. Either the universe has always been here or it had a beginning. If it had a beginning than a split second before this there had to be nothing. Some say it must have been God others, particularly scientists, avoid the question rather doggedly. What we do know is that something can not suddenly appear where there is nothing, at least not with our current knowledge.Answer: I've become very religious as a result of studying the universe. "
Please note the last two lines...Where do you get this stuff. The study of sub-atomic particles shows stuff appears out of nowhere all the time. Trying to answer one question by inventing something equally impossible is not a valid solution. The study of what happens when time does not exist will help you understand how nonsensical the idea or concept of a God that was before time is. Without time no being would have the TIME to create the universe. If it has time then it must also have a beginning and ending as it will be in TIME. So if you are going to invent something that explains the beginning of our time in our universe it's best to understand how time works.
@jcl "Oh My Gard! They found it! Do you think they will use in the next Grand Slam contest? (In Kidditch I'm talking about! Like when you ride a broomstick and try and oust your competitor, by fair means or fowl?)"
excuse my smile but I ask Is that a proof of no proof?@Rad Man:"Rad Manposted 80 minutes ago in reply to this
Where do you get this stuff. The study of sub-atomic particles shows stuff appears out of nowhere all the time. Trying to answer one question by inventing something equally impossible is not a valid solution. The study of what happens when time does not exist will help you understand how nonsensical the idea or concept of a God that was before time is. Without time no being would have the TIME to create the universe. If it has time then it must also have a beginning and ending as it will be in TIME. So if you are going to invent something that explains the beginning of our time in our universe it's best to understand how time works."
a) I am not inventing anything
b) I read , even if you won't believe it see? check the cat's paradox...if the door is closed, the cat may be either dead or alive...
or like I read once the analysis of the following statements: "the roof leaks", "bt...I do not have a roof"..., yets "there has to have been a roof 'cause we are experiencing a leak"
or , like the author of the cat's paradox himself wrote "...absurdities.."
c) inform urself better of the latest in...the saga for Higgs...ie...My comment had nothing to do the Higgs particle. I was talking about the study of other particles that they know appear and disappear from nowhere for no apparent reason, so stating that things don't appear out of nowhere would be false. Also an understand of time itself would help you understand why something doesn't have time to do anything without time.
@Rad Man:Rad Manposted 3 minutes ago in reply to this
"My comment had nothing to do the Higgs particle. I was talking about the study of other particles that they know appear and disappear from nowhere for no apparent reason, so stating that things don't appear out of nowhere would be false. Also an understand of time itself would help you understand why something doesn't have time to do anything without time."
Particles on and off of an observable event without 'reasons'? well that's the whole purpose...to simulate means to set almost identical conditions that may have generated the bang...and those simulatios follow a model, th model is called the standard model (there are other theories in physics, in philosophy, in religions, in atheists, in etc)...If and when higgs is 'discovered' (now it seems not discovered as the one 'discovered' does not gather the stuff needed to fulfill "a singularity' which is the point when time begins right in paralel with the bang...This is what I was referring to...I don't understand tour just posted comment...Physics has been on the saga for particles, formally, since XIX century...and Schrodinger wrote what I find most interesting and wide-open embracing...He was a Catholic, then 'onverted' to atheism . Nevertheless, he had it all in one: philsopher, biologist, ohysicist, mathematician, wisdom, suffering, and a breathtaking imagination...open always and down to earth...also spiritual!!!
In a single line, I'd say that finding 'time' beginnings and 'consciousness' will have a strong swaying impact on humanity...
And in another short line: so far, instead of the so much sought-after 'singularity' that should look black, it all keeps looking like a neat vanilla color swiss cheese ...Tht's what I was talking about...You talk about time and meanining...me too
But all people don't know right from wrong. Why would an omni everything God lease some out?
Of course everyone knows right from wrong. People choose to ignore their concious.
Sorry, psychopaths have no conscience. They feel no guilt.
simply because their conscience is dead. A simple, fun loving person can also become a monster, if one choose to do the wrong things instead of following the right way. We have the freedom to choose, .. make the right choice
Feeling guilt and "knowing right from wrong" are two totally separate ideas. Sociopathic and psychopathic behavior still has a rational concept of right from wrong even if they don't "feel" guilt for breaking societies rules as they percieve them.
Your conscience is merely what makes you aware of your surroundings. Right and wrong are relative to the majority that enforces them.
I have to comment on the use of the word "enforce" here. This is a strong egalitarian comment and implies that some entity or other is forcing this concept or morality in some way, but I believe the force being felt is the force of one's own conscience or that of societal pressure.
If we 'innately' know right from wrong then we all would have exactly the same morals from birth.
Unfortunately take any two humans and you'll see that's incorrect.
Atroubleman is right in the statement that we have an [b] inclination [b] to adapt morals because it has served us great evolutionary advantage.That is a false logical conclusion. Knowing and doing are entirely two separate things. a 2 year old knows they are not supposed to take the cookie from the jar at the top of the refrigerator, but they chose to climb after the cookie anyway. If that child is caught he will "innately" feel scolded without anyone saying a word in most cases showing a physical recoil or some other expression. Now higher moral concepts like societal norms is something else entirely. For example, a child will not know that a certain word is wrong to say in public. If that is your gauge then you have separated "knowledge of right and wrong" from "morality" in such a manner as to ignore societal pressures.
Human minds cannot fathom the mystery of God. Just believe in Him...
Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. But you don't have to prove it's composition, before you are ready to drink. It is wiser to drink and satisfy oneself, rather than trying to prove what exactly is the composition of water.
You lost nothing by believing in God. Pride will keep us from knowing the truth.And yet - when I go camping I don't drink the water from the river. I don't know what's in it.
Just as I don't know what is in the mystery of God. It will behoove us all to reject taking in anything we don't understand and know.Well, the water in the river is the same you find in your house. They both have the same quality, and you need to drink to live...
That is true, you do not know what is in the water...but if that was your only source of water, you would drink it eventually or die of dehydration. You may get sick from the water but you would most likely survive longer than by not drinking it. Thank God we have minds that can find the answers we need to survive right?
Human minds cannot fathom the mystery of God. - No, some of don't have time for games or BS.
Just believe in Him...- No. Don't tell me what to do.
Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. But you don't have to prove it's composition, before you are ready to drink. It is wiser to drink and satisfy oneself, rather than trying to prove what exactly is the composition of water. - Obviously you haven't read the news lately. Fresh water is a commodity. And in my country the US, the pipelines in our nations water systems need a serious upgrade. So yes, besides tests..repairs are also needed.
You lost nothing by believing in God - Yeah I did...decades of my life.
Pride will keep us from knowing the truth.- Exactly, it keeps you religious and stuck in the bronze age.stuck in the bronze age? .. well the word of God said, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.. The truth will always be the truth, nothing can change that...
Yeah, stuck in the bronze age. There is no god, Truth is being honest with yourself and with others and nothing can change that.
oh yeah Honesty is the best policy!
carry on!
There is God!
whether you like it or not!
I have met some of the most intelligent people on this planet and you know what thing most of them have in common? They believe in a higher power. Not only do they believe but several fields of science have proved that there seems to be some type of cognitive influence in the design of the universe. You are right in that no one can tell you what to believe. I think the zeal of some overcomes their penmanship.
The first statement is probably false, unless of course, your definition of intelligent is that of one who operated from a belief system.
The second is most definitely false.Maybe, but the belief in that "higher power" is then used by people, who claim to have the authority of the "higher power," to judge others for what is perceived as "god's" demands.
Believe that there is a higher power. Fine. Yes, and that can lead individuals to greater things, both physically, socially and psychologically/spiritually. But the judgement? NO.
The human mind works in such a way that one does not accept or believe in mysteries it cannot fathom, that is the epitome of delusion.
But, water is real, it is not a mystery we cannot fathom. We actually understand water.
One loses a great deal by believing in gods. The list is literally endless and is comprised of almost everything human beings have evolved that makes us compassionate, altruistic and intellectual.I don't lose a thing by believing in God. To talk about God, we need to go beyond our simple reasoning which often leads to wrong conclusion.
check out this hub, ..
http://raitudisong.hubpages.com/hub/God … e-Who-wins
http://raitudisong.hubpages.com/hub/How … rience-God
What contemporaneous (dating from the time of his life) evidence for the literal existence of the person of Jesus is there?
The earliest reference is by Senator Tacitus in AD116 i believe. He confirmed the crucifixion of a man named Jesus by Pontius Pilate the Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea.
He was also mentioned by Josephus the jewish historian in his writings from AD37.
Another reference to Jesus indirectly was by Pliny The Younger in AD112.
Also a letter from a Syrian prisoner to his son in about AD73 by Mara bar Serapion mentions Jesus although not in name.
And of course there is a reference to Jesus in the TalmudNone of those are contemporary. Josephus is the earliest, 40 something years after the fact (and almost all biblical scholars accept that it is a forgery/extrapolation. The only debate is now how MUCH was added later)
Tacitus, Pliny etc have all been researched/deviled/examined by secular scholars including frank zindler, Richard carrier, David Fitzgerald, etc. their latest book is about that very subject, where they completely dismantle Bart Ehrman's book on the historicity of Jesus question.Funny how all the Atheist find fault with historical record. I suppose people see exactly what they want to see.
This is not something that only atheists have found fault with. Hearsay and discussing what you have been told from someone else is not a historical record, and it doesn't prove that the original event happened. Contemporary means at the same time. There is nothing for a little over forty years. That's not contemporary. Even Christian historians say that Josephus is a forgery. This is not some grand "atheist conspiracy". Its hotly debated by historians and biblical scholars of all stripes.
So the writings of any ancient scholars should be taken with a pinch of salt because of the time period that has elapsed.
So the writings of Ptolemy could be considered BS because there is no conclusive evidence that he lived and could have been the works of later writers in medieval Italy where it would have been considered witchcraft if attributed to them.
Many theories and little evidence.I wouldn't pay a lot of attention to that. From what I've read only a very small minority of scholars now question the existence of Jesus. The lion's share, Christian or not, agree that Jesus existed, based on historical writings available. Anyone who doesn't think he existed has a reason for wanting to think he didn't.
Really? I don't care one way or the other whether he existed. But in all cases of history I realize the lack of contemporaneous accounts weakens the evidence. One hundred years of myth making can actually create "people" out of whole cloth. My own family history has show examples of that where excuses were made for things that within two generations we thought were true until someone when looking in the records.
I do agree that myths build surrounding the history of anyone. Jesus is a prime example. But, as I said, most historians agree that the probability he existed is so high as to make it a given. And think about it. The sources outside of Christianity don't doubt there was a man, they doubt his divinity. The Jewish community probably had over a 95% rate of illiteracy. Accounts make it clear that those who might have been able to read and write were of the same opinion as other sources as to the nature of the man. Although the gospels mention Jesus reading from the scrolls in the temple, I don't know that this proves even Jesus was literate. Muslims memorize the Koran by heart. I'm sure the ancient Jews were similar.
So, an illiterate people under the jack boot sandal of the Roman Empire probably had little ability to pass on history within their community in any other way than by word of mouth. Had the Jesus movement died at the crucifixion I doubt anyone would have considered it important enough to help get anything about the man written down.An argument from authority or popularity doesn't make something true. I'll not saying he didn't exist with certainty, but I think its also impossibleto say with absolute certainty that he did, and the myth position is not a new thing.
In the middle ages, it was popular opinion that the earth was flat, and a handful of people disagreed. That handful turned out to be right and everyone else was wrong.Unless someone did a survey we have no way of knowing what most historians believe. Based on the coverage last year of a tomb that may or may not have related to a brother of Jesus, I got the impression they thought it was pretty much anyone's guess. I know they got very excited and conclusive proof of the existence of Pilate was found.
Regardless, I don't think you can say the existence of the person of Jesus is an uncontroversial archeological/historical truth any more than the existence of a specific person with any known biographical facts who was, for example, Robin Hood or Merlin.Good point on the Merlin or Robin Hood analogy. I'm simply going by things I've read on the subject outside of Christian writings. I don't particularly trust them to be unbiased. However, I can't find anything anywhere, outside of sources pushing a Christian or atheist agenda which dispute the fact that such a man, in all probability, existed.
Wouldn't that depend on the individual?
You could suppose...
That if there were a being of love that there was also a dark, evil force that hated mankind and wanted them to suffer.
Or that one would have to change one's ways so one denied the exisitince of God the way a smoker might tell himself he wasn't going to get cancer.
Im sure there are other reasons, but those two seem obvious.Or, and a much more likely case, a person doesn't think there is evidence of Jesus living 2000 years ago. We have no pictures, we have no fingerprints, all we have is stories written by people who never meet him. No I don't know if he existed, but claiming any who claims he didn't exist has a reason to is a little absurd.
Yes, just like Jesus. Many theories, little evidence.
See how that works?
Actually it is generally accepted that the Josephus' passage is partially authentic. In other words, Christians can across his words and put their own interpolations in so put Jesus in a more favourable light.
Read more:
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
Indeed. So no materials from any person who could actually have met or seen him. Thus his existence is open to dispute just like a court would dispute hearsay evidence. Unlike, for example, Pilate--where there are engravings relating to him made while he was alive.
Christians do not simply rely on the historical evidence. Jesus is alive! It is not blind faith, ... they are not a fool to simply believe in something that don't mean a thing to them.
Didn't see this "contemporaneous (dating from the time of his life)"?
There are no contemporaneous writings to confirm that Alexander the Great ever existed so do you believe he did or didn't?
The first major writings were about 1BC.Not true, the Babylonian Astronomical Diary is contemporaneous and covers the issue.
Alexander the Great was a powerful figure. Jesus was only written about by historians when Christianity was gaining power. That would have grabbed their attention. Tacitus was such an historian and he must have referenced government records when he referred to Jesus' death under Pontius Pilate.
"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44Tacitus gives absolutely no indication where he got that info, probably just hearsay.
The truth is the historical argument for Jesus is non existent.Lol. You think a historian reports on hearsay? You don't think a historian wouldn't disclose if it was hearsay? If he did hear rumours I think he, as a historian, would check government records to see if it really did happen. He acknowledges Jesus crucifixion by Pilate but dismisses Jesus' divinity as superstition.
I must concede Josak that after a little research the confirmation of Alexandra,s death was indeed mentioned in the the Chronicles.
However most of the writings off his military exploits where written about by Greek scholars well after 332BC.
They also mention other great kings which are also mentioned in the bible for that matter.The bible is wildly inconsistent historically, many of it's claims are flat out false (a famous example being that we know that Jericho had no walls) and being that it is a text with an obvious agenda it's statements that support that agenda are not reliable or evidential but we have no statements other than from the bible that Jesus existed from his own time and certainly not from anyone who saw or met him or saw his supposed miracles.
The truth therefore is we have no reliable evidence at all for the existence of Jesus and most certainly no evidence of him as anything supernatural.wow we have a wonderful historian here, who claim to know everything that happened in the first century. You must be having some supernatural power, or a time machine
Do us a favor, write a book about all your findings. It could help many confused historians!
Who should have recorded His existence doing His life-time or, at least, what works could have survived considering Jerusalem was burnt to the ground in 70 AD? Do you think any writings from people who met Him would have survived?
What I can't get past is that if God is omniscient, how would he not know that evil was going to enter the world?
That suggests He is within a world than can do things He cannot foresee. The only explanation I can see is that this God is either not omniscient, or not omnipotent, or both?I believe that God could foresee, He simply believed we were worth it.
Worth the sadness and loss... To me it's like a couple who got married and had a miserable marriage. They have several children and later divorce. When asked if they could go back and do things differently, they say, "Just to have brought these children into the world makes it all worthwhile." God has no favorites... He offers His love, forgiveness and salvation to all men, they only have to turn to Him.I'll be honest. That explanation kinda sucks. It makes God sound like a bit of a schmuck.
Ill let you tell Him that. Besides, He didn't tell me that, it's just how Ive always imagined the situation.
If God is omnipresent wouldn't telling him that be a little redundant?
If a woman were beautiful would it be redundant for the man to tell her she is beautiful?
Are you saying God is a woman?
Either way, bad example. I said you made God sound like a schmuck so a better example might have been if a woman is over weight should a man call her fatty.Im having a hard time understanding what it is you are not understanding.
Is this a conversation about worship, about the goodness or lack of goodness of God, or about God's gender?I said you made God sound like a schmuck with your explanation. You said you'd let me tell him that. (stop me at any point where I deviate from the chain of events) I said, if he was omnipresent it would be redundant. He would already know what was said. You said a woman doesn't mind being repeatedly told she is beautiful. That isn't the same as telling someone, repeatedly, they resemble a schmuck. Repeated compliments don't have the same effect as repeated insults. Do they?
Either way, never mind. My whole point was you were working against yourself, if you didn't want to lower anyone's opinion of God. If that was your goal......never mind.Please look up the Wikipedia for Schmuck.....not very edifying!
1. schmuck (1) That portion of one's penis which is cut off during circumcision,a Yiddish term (an accent of the german language used by jewish people)
Is this what you are all referring to ?
That depends on the vanity of the woman and how often she wants to hear that.
How vain is your God?Im not vain, and I want to hear it. It makes me feel loved when my husband pays me a sincere compliment. Romance, words of kindness, compliments... these are all expressions of the heart. God certainly loves humanity deeply, there is nothing abnormal about us returning that same love.
So the God you worship is just like you. We have been told we can't understand him because he is far more complex then us, but perhaps all we needed to do was chat with Beth. It's curious to me that your version of God appears to mimic you.
wow. This was perfect and powerful. I couldn't have said that ANY better. Thank you, for that.
I don't assume God mimics me, it makes more sense that we mimic Him.
We don't mimic Him. Our world would have been destroyed long ago if we did.
Rage-prone destructive temper tantrums x seven billion people = BOOM!
No it's not. I'm sitting here at my computer during a lighting storm hoping I don't loose power.
Right, that was my point... the world appears to still be here.
A way of trying to understand something we have a hard time comprehending is putting the subject in familiar terms. We don't actually have to talk about Him at all... I thought that was the point of the conversation. If you find my attempts sub-par, I will be silent if you prefer and allow someone better qualified to answer the questions you raise.
It's funny how a created being is questioning the existence of someone who created Him. You think the little knowledge you have with you is enough to defend your views. grow up man
Unfortunately, the little knowledge you have is nowhere near enough to defend your views.
I don't have to defend my views, because i know it is the truth...I am just trying to tell you are more than a monkey..
Yes, I, along with you and everyone else, have evolved into humans.
That is apes view!... good we have another Darwin here
I was created by my parents and from time to time I have questioned them. You seem to think you have more information than me regarding humanity, and that gives you the right to defend your views while mine does not. Grow up man and ask a question man?
So according to the theory of evolution, your ancestors are the great apes. And I am sure I have more information about humanity because I am in no way associated with those apes, who just know only how to eat and live and die and forever gone.. ...
Human]are[/i] just one species of Great Apes. We did not evolve from the Great Apes, we all evolved from a common ancestor, at least that is the theory.
What do you see as more plausible - "god" "making" us and every living thing out of blue air? Or "god" using a system similar to the Theory of Evolution? I favour the second option... it sounds more logical.Actually, the apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Yes, not according to the theory of evolution, but according to the Truth.
So, you don't acknowledge the facts of evolution? You reject it in favor or your beliefs?
I guess you don't want to see the genetic evidence then do you?
Soldout I think you have been sold out by your god.... he only gave you half a brain.
Not vain, but you want to hear it? lol
And yet, it's a cheap and effective pick up line.
And yet, we find example after example after example of a God who is not loving at all, you know, like the divorced marriage example you yourself used.well for you God is unloving and cruel, but for whoever believes in Him, He is loving..
He loves you too, but you have chosen to not believe in Him, fine he is not forcing you..
So, once again, belief rules out the reality of an unloving and cruel god, if such a god were part of reality.
you should first learn to experience it by yourself, people can show you the way but you have to go there to know what it really is,.. It is meaningless to try to make your point here.
Those who claim they can show me have lost most contact with reality and that is where they would take me, too. No thanks.
You should not simply follow those who claim to lead you to reality, you have to go there by yourself... but it's your choice to continue in your thinking... that'a fine.. we all have our free will...
No one is leading me to reality, reality is demanding it's presence be acknowledged.
Yes, I choose to think. What are you doing?
Good you have decided to think.... you are still thinking , so better be still, so that you will concentrate better...
What a horrible religion if it's based on that kind of relationship. You call that a loving god?
It is interesting to see here that out of ten, only two or three believers could handle the critics.
What do you mean by handle the critics? And which two or three are you suggesting are doing it?
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."
- = - =
I agree completely
====================
Hanging on to this idea of "me" existing after my death is so, so pointless.
= - =
I think of it more like that little boy that went to summercamp retaining who he was at camp long after he goes back home to the city life. Those experiences that he had at camp adds to the person he was before he went to camp AND contributes to the person he becomes after.
If that little boy is judged because of his behaviour while at camp (for the rest of his life (?) it would not be justus if the judge didn't take into consideration the circumstances and enviroment which influenced any bad behaviour the boy may have committed.
I don't think that little boy should spend the rest of his live being tortured do you?
We have all committed our mischievous deeds at summer camp. Isn't it written that one mischevious deed is no greater than another?
=================
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!
= - = -
me Didn't Jesus die for the sins of the whole World ?
He only had to do that in order to satisfy the evil hearts of those selfrightious Phasisees of the day.
The Pharisee of today say that we are committing a sin in NOT accepting Christ.
When Jesus died for ALL sins .... why would he have left this one out. Did he die to cover ALL sins except for ONE. If so (?) then why did he forgive those which were rejecting him and killing him at that moment that he was forgiving them even Before they repented. ????????
I do believe that the energy which causes this physical body to perform continues to perform long after this body returns to dust. I also believe that this energy contains the inteligance to cause this body to perform and much, much more.
==================
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!
= - = -
Didn't Jesus die for the sins of the whole World ?
He only had to do that in order to satisfy the evil hearts of those self righteous Pharisees of the day.
The Pharisee of today say that we are committing a sin in NOT accepting Christ.
When Jesus died for ALL sins, did he leave this one out? When Jesus said "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do" Did he not forgive those that were rejecting AND killing him at that moment ?
US rightious people say that God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, AND that Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are one and the same, If this is all true, those that do not accept Christ .. "Knows not what they do" And Jesus died for their sins as well.
The battle that many Christians think they must fight (?) they themselves say that Jesus won that war when he rose up out of the tomb. So the war is over.
So I propose that every Christian begin celebrating by going out and hug an atheist or a homosexual and proclame ..... "The War Is Over" ... "Let there be Peace on earth" The kingdom of God has come.
Until we can do this ... It won't.Yes, the war is over! ...
It is just a question of
Where you are standing?
On the defeated side or with Jesus?
If you are not standing with Christ, you are doomed..Other way round
religion is fading very very fast, no surprise there.My faith is not based on how many people are believing or not. Even if I am the only one, my faith will never die, because I know it is the truth. Thank you Lord !
I admire your independence. It is fallacious to argue that just because a majority of people believe something, it is therefore true.
However, not listening to legitimate criticism and refusing to change your mind even if someone came up with a knockdown argument against you isn't rational at all; in fact, it's like when a child puts their fingers in their eyes and runs around yelling, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"
This would be true of atheism also. If a theist were to find a sure way to prove God exists, then the atheist would be irrational for denying it.theists have been looking for sure-fire ways to demonstrate the truth of their claims for thousands of years. all of them have fallen far short of the mark, yet they are still repeated. I WANT actual evidence to consider and examine. I WANT a challenge. I WANT to listen to the stories and form my own conclusions. I WANT to continue the discussion. I'm continually disappointed by the lack of what i receive, and I'm continually disappointed by the claims that people know with absolute certainty that their claims are correct - but they're completely unable to demonstrate them or prove them. If I wasn't open minded and willing to consider all of the possibilities, I wouldn't still be here asking.
Remember no one here will be able to prove it to you in writing, you need to experience it by yourself, .. . for instance, a very sick man who has lost all hope in medicine comes to you, you prayed for him in the name of God ,and he got healed instantly, will you still deny there is no God who is watching over us?
That's a new one. So someone prayed for a sick person and the prayer made them better? Is that all we have to do for the dying is pray? Quick, everyone to the nearest hospital, we need to save lives. Why are you just sitting their. I'll be down at sick kids for the next 48 hours. But there is the story about the parents who refused to bring their sick kid to the hospital and instead prayed and the kid died anyway and then they did the same thing to the second kid? Perhaps they don't know how to do it. Maybe soldout777 can show us how to do it before we waste out time and more people die. Do we say a specific prayer? Is there any money to be made here? Come on folks lets do this.
God will do what is best,..
don't try to be sarcastic,
just be yourself, and try learn something...Well, please provide your evidence that prayer works. Go ahead make me look bad.
well I have many EVIDENCES, but why should i waste time writing here when you are not ready to talk about faith .
The problem with faith is it is not a substitute for evidence.
By definition faith is unquestioning belief in something that has no supporting evidence so there is a slight problem with your definitions there."Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
If that is true, the many "EVIDENCES" you have is just faith because faith is the "evidence" of things not seen.
Amazingly meaningless, isn't it?When you phrase it like that, yes.
Which is why that's not what it means.So the Bibles definition of faith is, according to you, incorrect? Interesting.
Faith (and I know this is going to upset a few of my friends, and I'm sorry) is the excuse that is presented for believing in something without any verifiable evidence whatsoever. It all boils down to faith. You have faith that what you believe is true. You have faith that what you believe will wind up being true. You have faith that you're experience came from god. You have no proof our no evidence that you can demonstrate to anyone else other than you.It's not like I've never heard that one before.
No.
ATM's application (and yours as well here) of the Bible's definition of faith is incorrect.Yeah, okay.
Am I supposed to just accept your word and your interpretation on this, too, or are you actually going to show me how I'm "wrong"?I've seen you do some slick editing before, but that one was right up there with National Enquirer. You missed your calling.
What both of you are saying is that we who have faith have, for all intents and purposes, just decided that something is true with no proof at all. That's beyond blind faith, that's wishful thinking.
Those of us who have faith, the majority of us anyway, didn't just decide to believe something come hell or high water. I know I didn't. Paul didn't either. Paul did not have faith in Jesus as the Son of God simply because he decided to. He did have faith in a great many things he had never seen, in any sense of the word, but he did have an experience with Jesus. And the same is true for many of us believers. We don't all have the same experience(s). But we do have experiences. These are foundation events. We build from there. We study, at least most of us, we think, we examine. I certainly go back and look at all the things that have happened in my life, both those that I have shared and those I haven't shared, and reflect on them.
The mis-application is not being able to quote the text. Both sides love to cherry-pick texts and make entire arguments out of that. But the Bible is an entire book, and believers have entire lives, just as unbelievers do. And things that seem to obvious to believers seem equally obvious to non-believers but in the opposite direction. I've wondered about that for a long time, and I don't have a ready answer.Wishful thinking and faith are pretty much one and the same.
True, most were indoctrinated from childhood or some other part of their lives. Few if any, actually made any choices, they were made essentially by parents who were already in that religion and simply passed down their beliefs.
That's irrelevant.
That's fine, we all do that. But, to jump to conclusions of divinity is totally dishonest. You have not examined or studied anything when you do that.
In other words, there are some gems in the bible and some atrocities. We know the gems, we also point out the atrocities to show believers that gods are not exactly what you make them out to be because that is obvious, too.If wishful thinking and faith are pretty much one and the same then you do indeed have great faith, my son.
We await your explanation of what it does mean, then.
You've already gotten it. If you don't know what I'm going to say by now then your whole "knowledge and comprehension" speech just flew out the window.
Sorry, are you saying that you at one time addressed that quote in a thread? Obviously, I missed that thread, can you please point it out so I can read exactly what you said? Thanks.
No, I'm saying that I've discussed the concepts and ideas at length.
Nice try though.
Not really.Sorry, I never saw any of that and will not ask you to find a link or repeat the explanation if you don't want to, no problem.
Perhaps, those here who did read your explanations will be able to pipe in to your comments so as to take up the challenge.You've read them, you just either a) disagreed with them or b) denied them or c) retranslated what I said to try to make it sound like I was saying something different.
Or d) all of the above.
In light of the news about the parents who lost two kids because they believe in faith healing and refused to take them to the hospital when they were sick, this might not be the best example
I don't trust personal experiences as indisputable evidence of the supernatural. If I have an experience that I cannot explain, I go out and research possible explanations. I ask people who know more about various subjects than I do. I study the science. If, after all of that, I STILL can't explain it, then I have something that I cannot explain. That does not mean that I get to just assert that it was a god who has still not been proven to even EXIST just because I don't know what happened.
I hear all these healing stories all the time. Yet, when you get deeper into them, you realize that they didn't happen to the person who's telling you the story. They didn't happen to a person that the person telling the story actually knows. They happened to a friend of a friend of a friend who knows this guy in a different church/city/state - and they just decide that a god healed him - and disregard all of the medial attention that they've received and treatments that they've undergone.
If prayer can really heal people, there should be evidence of it - and there should be no christians dying of cancer or in hospitals with debilitating illnesses. We both know that it isn't true, don't we?Well, i agree with you on the fact that people die, even after many prayers.
You will not agree with me, but according to the Bible, whatever happens , happens for the good of those who trust in him.
so you will ask, is death a good thing?
God works in ways that is too hard for humans to fathom, but in the end you will realize the goodness of God.This is what people say who don't have an answer and don't want to think.
oh you think i don't want to think, that is what you think...
I know what i am doing, who i follow,...Make up your mind. First you say God is too difficult for us to comprehend and then you say you know him. How are both possible?
To be fair, Knowledge and comprehension are two different things totally. You can know someone all you want, yet not comprehend how or why they think the way they do
If you can't comprehend how or why they think the way they do then you don't know them at all. It's why we call dogs unpredictable even though they are our best friends.
In a somewhat off-kilter way, this is what I just said to ATM.
I think knowing and comprehending are closer similes than are knowledge and comprehension.
First off, knowledge is a noun while knowing and comprehending are verbs.
One can know or comprehend the knowledge. It is assumed in both cases that the knowledge is understood if one knows or comprehends it.
Knowing the knowledge is not the same as knowing 'of' the knowledge, of course. One can hear all about string theory, for example, but does not know or comprehend it.
Comprehending how or why people think the way they do is not as difficult as you make it. Certainly, if one spends the time to know someone, they most certainly would have a very good grasp of that. Of course, this is where the laws of probability enters the picture in that even though you have a good grasp of that person, the probability that you can predict their actions to a certain level of accuracy will greatly depend on the influences affecting that person. But, for the most part, you know a great deal of how they will behave.Knowing and comprehending can be very, very different. I'm not even just talking about myself, but I constantly run into people, both in life and in history, who believe that because they know what someone does they therefor intrinsically understand why they do it. Colonial England comes to mind. Utterly confident in their knowledge of surroundings and human nature (and natural English superiority) they were constantly tripped up by their self-imposed inability to truly comprehend why certain groups did what they did. Hence Afghanistan. Yeah, they built an empire but the legacy of that empire is not what those who carved it out envisioned.
Rush Limbaugh also comes to mind. He knows and can predict what people will do yet he gets tripped up when his utter self-confidence fails to predict backlash. He knows, but he doesn't quite comprehend. But his talent and sheer force of personality usually insulate him from coming face to face with real people in a real way.
I have seen, on both sides, people who can quote at length the words of people they disagree with. They know what has been said. Yet the spin they put on it only proves they fail to comprehend what has been said.Sorry, but your examples fell short in showing any differences. I am also quite puzzled that you actually used Rush Limbaugh in context with knowing and comprehension.
And you know something? I predicted that you would say that.
It doesn't really give me pleasure, though.Well yeah, I mean really, Rush Limbaugh? You also talked about Colonial England. Obviously, if they were so tripped up, they didn't have the knowledge they were so confident in possessing. Simple, really.
Didn't you get that was my point? They had knowledge but they failed to comprehend.
Knowledge and wisdom are two entirely diffrent things.
Everyone has some degree of knowledge while wisdom is in short supply.Rush is pretty much in short supply of both.
I see this conversation has reached a sticking point. I think the next move is to get out of the Molasses Swamp and make our way back to Princess Lolly.
Seriously, I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh. Unless you were using a definition of 'knowlege' that I'm not familiar with (and knowing you, that's entirely possible) then yes, he has knowledge. He didn't get where he is by being stupid, any more than Howard Stern (who I'm also not a fan of) did. They may not always make smart choices or say smart things, but they're not stupid people."Because of his parents' desire to see him attend college, he (Rush) enrolled in Southeast Missouri State University but left the school after two semesters and one summer. According to his mother, "he flunked everything", and "he just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_LimbaughAnd Einstein didn't speak until he was six. Are you really that limited? You accuse me of shocking incredulity and ignorance, is your proof of that to be guilty of the same?
As usual, you just throw the statement out and congratulate yourself on a job well done.
I was in my forties before I learned that the Smallpox Blankets story wasn't true. I learned the story in school, in class from a teacher. I've heard the Einstein story many, many times including in biographies on PBS. If you have the proof, I'm more than willing.
I also haven't failed to notice how you've moved the 'conversation' away from the original point.Yes, I totally get that you glean your information from tv. That's the problem.
In other words you have no proof, you just think you have another chance to bang on me.
Even if you're right, you're still wrong.No one is "banging" on you Chris, please stop playing the victim card. You are not a victim here.
We don't get our information from tv programs, Chris.Documentaries on PBS (among other sources, which I said) is not the same as "tv programs, Chris." Nice try, not really, again. And it's not my only source of information (for the second time this post and the umpteenth time in my interactions in these forums, but knowing you you will just take that first sentence and ignore all the others. You're fun and bubbly like that.)
Victim card? You wish. Pointing out your inconsistencies and bad manners and poor protocols is not the same as claiming victimhood. And although it's been pointed out to me before that maybe I'm not too wise for taking this stance, I've never felt terribly threatened by someone who hides their face and name, especially if it's in service of poor debating skills.It is exactly the same thing, unless of course, you're going to tell us another whopper that PBS is not on tv.
Yes, your other source is the bible.Well, at least you don't deviate from form. Gotta admire that.
I notice that, as usual, you completely ignore the part of the post that's inconvenient for you.
However, I do admire the grammar lesson.
Seriously.
It's just like flying an Incom T-65 X-wing Starfighter, you can fly it down the long channel on the Death Star to hit your target, avoiding the 30 odd guns firing at you all the time, but you have no idea how it all works.
I say the same thing.
He is too difficult to comprehend, and I know this is a really imperfect analogy but it's not unlike chess or great music. Or nuclear science. You can spend a lifetime studying (young man: "I would give my life to play like you, sir." Old man: "I have given my life to play like me, sir.") and learning all the intricacies and arcana of it and still never really plumb the depths. But you can still 'know' it.
It's kind of like that with God, except that He is a living being. He's just way, way more complex than you and I, but we can still know Him.Yes, an invisible and completely undetectable "living" being. Nice contradiction.
Not undetectable. He doesn't reveal Himself to everyone, but even then it's not like there are NO signs of Him.
Does that detection only happen in the mind Chris? And why would he only reveal himself to some?
The answer to the second question is: I don't know. I've wondered about that a lot. I wish I knew.
To the first one, I am a little leery of that one. Do you mean it's all perception? Because some people perceive the Universe as a sign of Something Bigger and others don't. And I don't just mean Christians.Question, In what capacity do you believe God to be detectable?
Well, of course to some people He makes Himself known directly. I'm not unique.
But I do think that many of the wonders of the universe are signs that He is out there. So many things just don't make sense as pure random chance. Or at least they don't make any MORE sense as pure random chance than they do as the product of a greater intelligence.I'm not sure you understood my question (And I'm not trying to be insulting here.). Let me rephrase it. There are some Christians that believe that God is detectable because he interacts with this world the same way as he did in the OT (without as many of the plagues and boils. etc), which is how they get jobs, cars, houses, etc. There are others that state that he is detectable simply in the life cycle of things around us. There are still others that state that He is detectable by virtue of the holy spirit that dwells inside of everyone and guides us in our decision making (which others refer to as morals and/or ethics). with this in mind, I repeat my question: In what way is God detectable to you?
Yes. To different levels and at different times in different people.
Okay, You still aren't answering my question. IN what way is GOD detectable to YOU. How is Chris Neal able to detect God?
Okay, ummm let me make sure I understand you.. God id detectable to you because you feel the holy spirit, you think he physically interacts with the world the same way now than he did in the OT, and in nature? Do I finally have you correct?
Yes, he "heels" the holy spirit all of the time. Like on a leash.
Apparently, someone making a counterclaim to what you believe is intolerant. But insisting that you know something without any demonstrable evidence and saying that people who disagree are wrong - well that's tolerance in action right there.Yeah. I was afraid you were attempting to herd me into some sort of Pat Robertson "AIDS is a plague on the gays" sort of crap, which I don't subscribe to.
I've talked before about my feeling the Holy Spirit. I don't claim it often, in fact twice, but this is not new information.
I do believe that God is present in the natural world, after all He created it. Do I literally think He causes the floods and earthquakes the way He did in the OT as direct punishment for specific groups? I don't know. Some of them I wonder about, not for a specific group like residents of New Orleans or Japan as a specific punishment but certainly the world He created has rules and we have ignored them at our peril.
I said that many things in nature (and I mean the whole universe, but I mean "naturally" occurring things as opposed to man-made) at the very least don't make more sense when you take God out of the equation than when you don't.I don't know what you're used to here on the forums (ok, well yeah maybe I do know what you are used to, which I offered insight into earlier, by the way), but I don't operate that way. I was asking out of curiosity. I'm not trying to push you into a corner or anything like that.
It is to me. I haven't seen it yet.
Okay, so here it appears that you may not know for sure, but you are pointing out that we have violated rules and as such you wouldn't put it past God, am I correct here?
So does this mean that you believe that God is actively waving his hand and everything is working in the life cycle that way?In other words, you do believe those folks died in floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. because they ignored Gods rules.
That is stunningly hilarious considering so many faithful believers have died in natural disasters.
Uh, they make far more sense when the delusion of gods are taken out of the equation.So in other words, you agree with me and that's funny?
I agree!
If you claim that God has made Himself known to you directly, that immediately implies that you are special. You're not.
That is merely a statement of incredulity. Your ignorance of the world around you is certainly not any evidence for gods.
What's worse is that you base your beliefs entirely on false premises such as "pure random chance" which couldn't be further from the truth.Well, at least I can count on you to make me laugh!
Yes, some maintain Jesus is real, while others Allah, while others it's just God, and for some the holy spirit and I'm not even getting into what the hindu's perceive. Many say they detect their version of God in their minds, but which one is real. The Muslims are just as convinced that they speak to Allah as you are to Jesus or the holy spirit. How come God doesn't appear to them as Jesus or the holy spirit as he does to Christians?
As I understand it, Rad Man, the supposed "gods" of the Hindu religion are simply aspects, facets, of the one true god, Brahmin. They represent analogies of the attributes we humans can relate to.
I might be wrong, but think that is the true picture.Wikipedia; Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism among others; and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual and the tradition and philosophy followed. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization.
My point is God doesn't reveal himself as Jesus to Hindu's, Muslims or Jews or any of the other religions. What makes people think (knowing this) that they have the correct religion or the relegation isn't only a product of the mind?
Again, I don't know. If there's one thing I've learned as both the recipient and the deliverer, it's that some of these easy answers that a lot of people have come up with that they stick to like glue can be facile.
And frankly it's not like He reveals Himself to all Christians in the same way. Some Christians never "see" Him like I did (no, I didn't literally see Him) and many have far more visceral experiences than I've had. If I had the time to do the research and thinking, I might form a theory but right now I just know that as frustrating as I find it when people keep banging on this square peg with the round hole of their pet theories, I try not to do that to others.I understand your frustration, Chris, but I don't necessarily believe that people are necessarily banging on the peg with their theories, but they are continuing to worry at the hangnail for a reason that should be understood considering this specific admission:
This statement appears to imply that you haven't taken the time to explore these experiences fully yourself in an effort to ensure that it is God. So If I am correct with my understanding of this statement (and forgive me if I am wrong) as frustrating as it is, you have to understand why the atheists are skeptical. Most of us are continuing to ask questions because we are truly interested. Take me, for example. I ask questions because as I am a believer and am truly interested in learning and hearing how other believers arrived at their belief because I enjoy the discussion of God. Of course there are some that don't believe you and the fact that you haven't explored it further sort of strengthens that skepticism. I don't think that JM, Rad, or even ATM are specifically picking at that hangnail just to be jerks about it. The fact (so to speak) of the matter is that you may (possibly) unknowingly be sitting on a potential breakthrough in actually being able to prove the existence of God for us all, but you have not explored it. I'm not sure how much any of this means to you, but it is not reasonable to expect a skeptic to accept something and go along with something that you have not explored for yourself and it is not logical (which you have stated yourself that you accept the possibility that you could be wrong) for you not to explore it yourself. To do is is the equivalent of driving along a dark, mountainous road with the headlights off and you're blindfolded. You could be going over a cliff and taking others with you. From a Christian point of view, it is not fair to yourself nor to your brothers and sisters in Christ because you could be missing a message from God that you are supposed to deliver. And, of course (as others have pointed out) it is not rational for you to get angry about being questioned about it because even though you have questions yourself, you haven't fully sought the answers for yourself (again assuming my understanding is correct).
I hope you don't take this as me trying to beat anything into you as I'm trying to provide an objective (as much as possible) perspective that I hope you take in the spirit of good intentions that it is meant to be. If this helps you to take understanding from this, it should alleviate some of that frustrationNo, I understand what you're saying.
As Julie has said, I have "a lot of crap" in my life. This is not just that my wife passed away. I have three kids, two of whom are autistic.
I don't know how this got lost in the translation, but I don't treat Rad the same as I treat JM or ATM. And I got more upset with Rad because I thought he and I had more of a relationship than I had with JM or ATM. And I still do, as long as it's not about religion.
I just don't have the time to do the reading and thinking that I did before Lisa died. It's not lack of desire.Thank you for that bit of intimate information, Chris. With great respect to you and your family, I feel that the continuing discussion of religious matters is probably even more important for you now than it might have been in the past.
Please let's continue this discussion with a bit more understanding and caring. We do not need to hold back on personally held convictions, even when addressing someone else who has opposite convictions.
The personal need for faith and solace is important regardless of disagreement.+1.. Chris, We're all pulling for you in your situation as well as we pull for each other. There are a bunch of us that I feel are more close knit than the rest in spite of our differences.
Good. I never want you to think I'm beating you up when I ask questions. I like trying to understand people before I try to be understood
I understand and my heart goes out to you in your difficulties. I am praying your continued strength while you continue to adjust.
We all have different relationships with one another. Whether we consciously do it or not, we do not speak to each other individually the same way. I might try to approach everyone the same way, but I don't converse the same way.
I can certainly understand that perspective. And think about it like this, some of us are not asking you questions just to beat you over the head. Actually, (at least for me) I ask questions to understand then make observations in an effort to push thought. Even if someone comes to the same conclusions, at least they are turning things over in their mind and applying logic in their thinking, which will make them more rational when holding discussionsChris, I remember that someone made the suggestion that you keep away from these forums for a bit after Lisa passed away. Sometimes, it helps, especially with the people here that you really enjoy discussing with, to mention that things are still a little rough on you sometimes. Maybe, even, you're not a hundred percent on your game. Your children require the best of you, always, and we understand that. So, if you need to tell one of us to get bent here and there because you're feeling less than feisty, or just don't bloody have time for any of this stuff, by all means do. There is not one of us here who won't understand that. And - not one of us here who won't offer you some leeway under circumstances such as those.
And, hey, there are times when people just aren't gonna get it. Get you, get me, whatever. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try or how rationally you attempt to explain, our faith just won't make sense to those without it. That's okay. It is no reflection on the strength or truth of your faith that others find it ... well, whatever they find it.
So, brother, I'm not saying that you need to make excuses, but remind us on occasion that you're human too and may occasionally need someone to back the heck off for a minute or two, sheesh! Got it, Rad?! Give the guy a break! Hiya, Jonny. Is this an odd time of day for you to be around? I love seeing you, but I never know when to expect you.
Haha, yes, Mo. It can be odd times with me. Sometimes when I go to bed early (8.30-9.30) because there is nothing sensible in TV, or I am simply very tired, then I tend to wake up in the early hours.... that can be 2am or 5am. Since I find it difficult to keep away from you people, I get straight onto the laptop... please see my hub, Ode to the Computer, lol.
Australian Eastern Standard (Winter) Time is about 17 hours ahead of Florida time and about 3 more hours ahead of L.A. time.Well, I love seeing you any time of the day or night. One of my favorite things about my insomnia for a while was that it gave me ample time to interact with Ernest in the forums.
I am thankful to have that reason back, only with a new Aussie friend.
+1. We're on your side Chris and we all are here for you if you need to vent a little.
Among others, yes.
Don't try to make it sound like I'm claiming special revelation or privilege. I know I've sounded like that in the past so I go to pains to make it clear that I'm not Moses and don't have daily 'face time' with God. Most of what I know of Him and about Him is from the Bible. I do not consider myself some kind of prophet.We're not interested in others, because you don't really know that for a fact.
You absolutely are, there is no question of that.
Just like the rest of us, except it's not "most" of what we all know, it's "all" of what we all know.
Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes trying to tell us you have any face time at all with gods. It doesn't fly, dude, and only makes it appear as some sort of mental disorder.Nice try.
And you accuse me of going around and around.
Wheeeeeeeeee!
Wow.... You know I've seen people devolve before, but never quite as hard or fast as you. You've got a lot of crap going on. I get it. But don't take it out on random people just because its convenient. I expected better, seriously.
Now say "yes mommy" again and succinctly prove my point for me.
I feel for you, Chris. I really do, but this childish "he said she said" bull doesn't suit you, and I can't really take you seriously anymore - and I'm sorry for it.Um.
'kay.
Look, for years when someone simply makes a statement with nothing to back it up I respond in kind. No devolution involved. I haven't always handled actual conversations with the grace that I should have, but when someone makes an actual point, whatever I might think of that point, if I respond I make an attempt to actually respond. So for instance if ATM simply says, "God isn't there," I respond, "Except of course that He is." On the other hand, if he makes a statement about Christianity attracting horrible people I give a three or four paragraph response about how Christianity does attract horrible people but that makes it so far from unique, even atheism sometimes attracts horrible people.
And I stand by the "yes mommy" because whatever you thought you were doing you were scolding me like a little boy. Perhaps not my graceful, charming best but come on. When I get out of hand I get addressed in an appropriate manner as well. It's not that I want to stop discussing things with you it's just that your particular posting had the air of a scolding.If i was scolding you like you were a little boy in your perception, maybe it's because you recognized (at least on some level) that you were behaving immaturely. It was certainly not my intention to "scold" you, but it was my intention to call you out and remind you that we both agreed to try and do better - and to hold each other accountable when we failed. If you see honoring an agreement as a scolding, then that's really on you - not on me. But I'm sorry you see it that way. The fact that you stand by it even now speaks volumes, and I'm really starting to doubt my initial assessments of you.
and that's all I was trying to do. I hope you see that.
God is not invisible?
Is this a new definition of 'invisible' I'm not aware, perhaps gleaned from the "Bizarro" dictionary?
If God is visible, why can't everyone see him?Okay, Chris.
I clearly missed your definitions on faith wherever you happened to post them, and you've refused to clarify the issue for me.
Next question - if god is detectable, then how do you propose one detects him.It looks like I'm not the only one who couldn't find that. Chris needs to clarify.
I haven't refused, I just haven't gotten there yet.
I beg to differ. When ATM asked for the exact same clarification that I'm asking you for you said:
"You've read them, you just either a) disagreed with them or b) denied them or c) retranslated what I said to try to make it sound like I was saying something different.
Or d) all of the above."Yes, and that was my response to ATM.
That was not my response to you, as evidenced by the fact that the post was not in response to one of yours.
With great care and diligence. Or by observing nature and wondering who made the leaves. Or by reading the Bible and looking into it. Or by talking to people of faith and wondering what makes them tick without bringing preconceived notions and biases into it. Or...
Okay, and considering the fact that other people can do all of that and reach different (if not opposing) conclusions to the ones that you reach, does that make you automatically correct? No. It doesn't make me automatically correct either. You have to reach a consensus in the middle and exert a willingness to explore all of the options, rather than just finding one that works for you and applying it as a blanket statement on everything else.
When I look at nature, I recognize that trees made the leaves, and trees reproduce and pollinate future trees all by themselves. I've read the bible - and I've studied it on a deep, collegiate level. I've talked to people of ALL SORTS of different faiths, and marveled at their cross-religious experiences that so similarly mirror each other - all of which are attributed to a different "source". I'm not trying to be biased, although it may come out that way. I'm trying to be open to any evidence that is presented, and following that evidence regardless of where it leads. In my case, it led me to atheism. If I had simply dug my heels in and refused, sticking to my beliefs without considering the implications or evidence, I'd still be a believer. I'm not.
To me, it seems to be all about perspective. Although two people can take the exact same steps, they can often arrive at opposite conclusions. And that's okay. Simply insisting that you're correct (by default making someone else wrong) is not the way to have meaningful dialogue.I acknowledge that people of intelligence, good will and 'good faith' so to speak will reach different conclusions. I'm very aware of this. Sometimes the same person will reach different conclusions at different times in their lives (hello! That's me waving my hands over here!)
I can acknowledge and respect this and treat people with respect while still understanding that there is such a thing as objective truth and sometimes reaching a consensus (unless that consensus is that we all need to work harder to be respectful and get along) is not the best objective.
Now, I don't know what you "hear" when you read that. I've tried very hard to explain my thoughts on a great number of things.
alive is defined as (of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead. How does God fit in to that definition.
Because He's not dead? He has thoughts, feelings, plans, takes action, interacts with people, guides events. He's not a computer. So what non-living, self-aware, self-volitional being (not creature because He was not created) fits the description? He's alive. What would you call it?
You want me to agree that he's alive and not dead, but when we die we join him and live forever just like him? Are you also saying when we die we loose all the things we have while alive, thoughts, feeling, memories?
Not at all. We stand before Him and get judged on all of that stuff.
A merry-go-round.
Chris is just yanking everyone's chain.
Given the two aspects of God (physical/mental) we still can't know Him.
The physical is an impossibility. We don't even know what the physical attributes might be or whether our sense can detect Him. He might be composed solely of gamma radiation, for example. So the physical "knowing" is out.
Mentally, all we can have are the words of what God wants or does, written by past people that while sorely lacking in both knowledge and reasoning abilities were at the root no different that we are. We can, for instance, declare that God did this or that and thus we "know" that aspect of him mentally, but we have no real evidence that our declaration has even the slightest truth in it. We never do a statistical analysis of His supposed works, we never double check that what we decide is His work is actually His - we just claim it is so. In this case our knowledge, using your analogies, is that we don't know how many squares are on the chessboard and that we don't know that pressing a piano key will produce a note. We "know" absolutely nothing about God's mental side.
Without knowing even the tiniest bit of information, then, we cannot "know" God at all. Just what attributes or characteristics we choose to assign to Him but not whether our choices have any connection with reality at all.My first problem with your analysis is the lack of credit you give to ancient peoples. Just because they didn't understand germs or fission doesn't mean they lacked knowledge or reasoning capacity. If that were so, then you would contradict your statement that "at root they are the same as us" because you implied that we modern men do have the knowledge and, more importantly, capacity to reason that ancient peoples so sorely lacked. They worked with what they had, just as we do. And I dare say they did better with it than most of us would.
Secondly, it's a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Seriously, you say that because we can only know bits about Him we can never know Him. In fact, there are those of us who do have a personal relationship with Him. He is alive.I obviously didn't make myself very clear. The ancients were missing a very major and primary tool for gaining knowledge and understanding; the scientific method. Without that tool, the reasoning process has, and is, greatly flawed as personal and subjective desires badly interfere with the reasoning process. At the same time, few people make a real effort to to use that tool, or any part of it, and personal desires still enter into the equation; that's why I say that at the root we are no different.
But we cannot know even the tiniest bits of knowledge about God. Not the first minuscule piece of Him. You claim a personal relationship with Him, but that isn't true - you have a personal relationship with a construct you have defined for yourself. You have zero idea if that construct, and what you attribute to it, has a basis in reality. You have never tested, you have never truly examined; you have not applied that greatest of reasoning tools in the scientific method. Instead you assign attributes based on what you want them to be, and cannot claim any relationship with what He actually is.Didn't you know that insisting that something is true repeatedly despite your inability to prove it true automatically makes it true? Come on now, get with the program.
Apologies. I abase myself and will make effort in the future to remember that most important datum, for it MUST be true; we certainly see it done enough in these forums.
Funny, that's exactly what I've been saying, in that exact tone of voice, for a long time.
The first paragraph was good. Flawed but good. The fact is that the absence of the scientific method didn't mean that ancient peoples couldn't and didn't reason things out. They still understood quite a lot, including birth cycles, seasons and the fact that the Earth is round. I'm not knocking the Scientific Method, I'm just saying that you can't sell ancient peoples short just because they didn't have a codified Scientific Method.
The second paragraph showed that you yourself are quite willing to abandon that method if you have a preconceived notion or bias. No soap. You'll need more than simply to make assertions about what we can know and what I am thinking and doing in order to prove your statement true.and, once again, you'll need more than just assertions for us to consider what you say and your claims of a supernatural deity. It works both ways, Chris.
What you have to understand, Chris, is that I CAN psychologically dismantle some of the claims you've made. I've studied psychology in depth in college. I choose not to. I don't think there's a psychological box that any person can be smashed into - no matter how hard some people may want to do that to others. I don't do that. I have never posited a theory about you on a psychological basis, although I'm sure that sooner or later, one or more may fit. If i really just wanted to place you in a prescribed theory, I could. I don't. I don't do it because I do have a level of respect for you, and I don't like being shoved in a box myself. I don't see anyone here trying to do it. I see people coming up with alternate theories to your claims - not insisting that you fit into them or trying to force you into them. If you want to posit a theory about the source of your experiences, then you have to be willing to see alternative possibilities. I don't see that from you. You just seem to want to rail against any other possibility aside from the one you've already decided on. That doesn't seem honest or open to me - but it could just be my perception.I was specifically responding to that post. I was getting a little grumpy there, but I have pulled back from that. I don't generally lump people together and make every effort to respond to people individually.
It's entirely possible that you can 'dismantle some of my arguments' if you so chose. The problem with Rad's use of the super-ego is that he was basically stretching it to fit something that it didn't fit. I'm in no way familiar enough with Freud to launch into any kind of general discussion or refutation of the idea. The way Thousand Words explained it was good and I felt I understood, including why the theory would be so attractive to people who don't understand why I believe. I don't agree with it as a be-all and end-all, but I also am fully aware that there are certain situations where this is a concise explanation of why people act the way they do. And I don't just mean believers.
As I keep saying, I try not to just shove people into a box, and I appreciate that you also don't. But what I want is an individual conversation with you (and anyone else) and blanket statements about my mental state just tell me that the person who made that statement (and here I'm not singling you out, I'm just making a point) is not interested in conversation. They have already made up their mind, and they're going to tell me, and if I'm too dumb to see how right they are then I just don't deserve to be treated like a human being, let alone an adult.
Pure, common-o'-garden evangelism, Chris. No more substance to it than that.
As opposed to your garden-variety, out-of-hand rejection?
Rejection for a couple of reasons will suffice..... 1. I have experienced what it's like to be on the proclaiming side and on the receiving side. Each I see as 100% not for me. 2. There is little, if any, concern in the evangelical christian message that addresses the duty we have towards this planet and its ongoing healthy existence.
You were on the proclaiming side? This is the first I've heard that.
There is growing concern in the evangelical community about global warming. I'm not saying there is a pending tidal wave of environmental warriors waiting to break free, but it's not like we're all oblivious to what's going on either. And many of the people I know who are most vocally skeptical about global warming are not Christian.
To an extent that would be a red herring in any case. Not that it's not a legitimate concern, but the first and foremost concern of any religious group, whether they be Evangelicals or Catholics or Mennonites, would and should be the relationship of the human being with God, not the planet. If you are concerned about your relationship with God (the editorial "you," I haven't forgotten your first point) and also with the planet then it's your job to bring this concern to the attention of others in your group, not judge them as deficient because they don't make it their primary concern.Religious groups put much more importance on their "relationship with god," than taking care of this planet which is our home and our lifeblood! One big reason I will NOT join a religious group!
The idea that we humans, as a species, are "god's chosen," is unintelligent, conceited, deceptive nonsense. We are supposed to be at the top of the Intelligence Tree. You would hardly think it, reading the religious bigotry seen in these hubs.
I have shown respect and tolerance to yourself, Chris, and other christians here, but I am flabbergasted at the general ignorance shown about ecology and good natural science. The further understanding of these subjects is vital to our sustained existence. Otherwise we, as a species, are destined for the scrap heap, and there will be no god figure to recycle us.Considering that this is the first time I can recall discussing ecology in one of these forums, I must wonder if I've been one of those who flabbergasted you?
No, not specifically in your responses. Yet your focus on what "god" wants rather than what we, the earth's inhabitants need for our lives, shows clearly where I differ from you.
Yes, that is true.
If God exists, then what God wants is what is best for human beings. That does not mean that all things pursued in God's name are truly things that He would want.This "God" that you believe in "exists" only in your mind. Every other person who believes in a "God" has his/her version of "God" that "exists" in his/her own mind.
On this premise, when you say the following, Chris: "If God exists, then what God wants is what is best for human beings. That does not mean that all things pursued in God's name are truly things that He would want" ... you perceive the "God" inside of your mind as wanting what is best for mankind. In reality, it's Chris who is making the decision as to what is best for mankind. It has nothing to do with a god out there somewhere, an entity divorced from our physical world. It's all a personal wish that you Chris, or any other believer wants to see happen in the world. Again, nothing to do with "God."
When individual humans listen only to their own ideas as to what should happen in the world, and get an egotistical attitude of "I know what is best for everyone else, they need Jesus," then we get the fallacious and interfering evangelism so prominent in the christian religion.That's as far as I got.
I will eventually read the rest but I doubt that it will be any deeper than that.
You made a point of telling me that you have been tolerant of people like me.
Thank you.
Guess that's done now?Okay, I read the whole thing and I was correct.
And you're not.
I respect that you don't believe in God. That's your choice. But telling me what I think, especially in the way that you did, is not your choice. It's every bit as arrogant as you say I'm being.And is it not possible to think beyond any currently-held beliefs? Does the mind really have to be locked in, discarding anything beyond the christian ethics? Could you safely consider some insights which might come out of a study of Hindu or Buddhist understandings? Or would that hinder your walk with your god?
No, in fact I do consider things.
I just don't react well when people, whether they think they're attempting to get me to "see other points of view" or not, do so by telling me that I only have a construct or a delusion. It's certainly not like that possibility has never been posited before, but usually in pretty much the way that you did it, by telling me what I'm doing and why I'm wrong.
I'm all for civil conversation, even if we don't agree on hardly anything.
God certainly doesn't want too many children running around as he starves them to death by the tens of thousands daily.
Or, maybe God wants to watch them die, daily, by the tens of thousands.Or maybe God wants human beings to get off their snarky duffs and get out there and have compassion for their fellow human beings.
Which I'm certain is much less fun than throwing random pseudo-intellectualisms out and then sitting back on our haunches with a satisfied smirk.What makes you think that one is mutually exclusive of the other, since I am actually proficient at both, and do both regularly.
Nothing. I'm fully aware that many atheists (including you) regularly practice philanthropy and take part in humanitarian causes. Which is why I was aiming this at ATM and not you.
So we should only respond to posts that are directed at us? There would be no forum at all were that the case. Every time I see you jump in on something that I addressed to a different person, should I respond to you this way?
I don't think he said you shouldn't respond. What I understood was that he was reassuring you that he had not directed his comment at you.
(See what I did here? I responded to someone who wasn't speaking to me. lol)I see your point. Nevertheless, I do respond differently to you than I do to ATM than I do to Rad. And I don't lump the three of you together. You're free to jump in of course, and welcome to do so, I will simply point out when I am responding differently to whoever I was talking to than I would have if you had posed the question (although in ATM's case, you generally wouldn't pose the same questions, at least not in the same way, that he does.)
Then, He would want the same thing for everything else, hence your claims are false, by your own words. You contradict yourself.
What? I've seen ones where you make no sense before, but this one takes the cake. Can you even explain (in a non-snarky, well-constructed series of sequential sentences) what that is supposed to mean?
It's really quite simple and we have been saying it time and again, that if your God deserves praise for doing things, then he equally deserves blame for not doing things.
How did you get there from what you actually said? They don't equate.
In any case that fails to negate my point that humans are just as guilty of the indolence they accuse God of.So what? God is to blame if God is praised. Simple, really.
So... again... is God a myth, as you claim, or is He busy starving children, as you claim?
If we talk about God as a literal being, then he is a myth. If we talk about God as the result of the evils caused by organized religion in the world, he is very busy starving children.
Im the first to say that God is not about religion, He is about relationship. However, I will say that in most disasters it is the church that puts itself in harms way trying to give relief and care to those struck by catastrophe. Whether that be floods, famines, disease... they are among the first respondents. And I would never take away from efforts made by those who are outside of the church, but that is a part of being rational... giving credit where credit is due instead of mud flinging to make a point. That's why I can't discuss politics, because ppl just hate the opposition as opposed to recognizing good and bad within both parties.
But, we know gods are all about religions, by definition. In other words, you're tossing the definitions out the window. Dishonest.
That is entirely false. Churches are not the first to respond. They've usually been struck by the very same catastrophes.I wondered about this for a long time, but now I have proof. You intentionally misquote people just to get reactions.
Whatever you do... no matter how cute you think it is... don't call him a l*ttle m*nkey.
Yeah, most people know how NOT to call other people names - accidentally or on purpose.
I was playing with him. Ive always said, he plays a game so I play too.
One day when he was particularly surly, he was picking on every one from all sides, I said his situation is like that of a monkey in a tree who throws rocks at any one who passes by. It was just a comment made in fun, I think it would take some doing to make an issue of it.What a crock. That is sinking mighty low when one has to justify name calling.
I've actually called him worse and didn't get banned. Go figure.
No, you have no proof, we already know that's just a feeble fabrication.
That is a lie, I never change any words in another person's quote. You appear to be just telling one whopper after another. Is that how you get your kicks here? Aren't you actually the one trying to get reactions by lying?If it's a lie then why do you chop up what I say in order to fit a specific thing you want so often?
To say that I am lying is a lie. In other words, to say that I'm incorrect is something that you and I both know is not true.Another whopper. Do you ever stop? Does honesty mean absolutely nothing to you?
It means a great deal more to me than I believe it means to you. If I'm telling a falsehood then prove it.
Which has not been your style. You usually prefer to simply make the statement as if your making it were proof enough.If by "we all" you mean 'you' and by 'proving' you mean 'make accusations of without providing the proof' then I suppose in a twisted way you would be correct.
No, I mean all the others here who are doing the same thing, exposing your fabrications for what they are and criticizing your false claims. Their posts are here for all to read, Chris, not just you and I can see them.
I think you really believe that you and 'everyone else' are actively 'proving my lies' on a regular basis.
And that says a lot.
About you.
Actually, ATM, you have taken parts of certain points in order to make a specific point of your own.. there are at least two instances of that here in this. But the thing of it is, you're not the only one that does it. We all have taken certain phrases in each others comments and responses and used them to make a specific point. You don't change any words and no you don't turn things around, just take some sentences.
I know in the past I've been guilty and in fact have become so frustrated with ATM's habit of doing it to make points that may not even really pertain to my posts that I now try hard to deal with the whole post. If I take a portion of a post (which I've done recently) I still try to go back and deal with the whole thing at another point.
Here's how it works. The posts folks write here usually contain qualifiers, those points which are the crux of the point being made. The rest of the post may or may not affect the qualifier, usually it doesn't, hence it often need not be required. If those qualifiers can't stand on their own, then they aren't qualifiers. I point out those qualifiers and respond directly to them.
Others here don't do the same thing point by point but may very well quote the entire post and then respond below it, yet they are still responding to the qualifiers of the post, exactly what I'm doing.
Chris is merely making lame excuses because he has nothing to offer in response.
By the way, I didn't say you change the words. I said you chop them up. You have a habit of taking one or two sentences out of posts that may be paragraphs, simply so you can say what you want to say even if it's already been addressed within the post.
But if we talk about God as a literal Being, He is very much alive and wanting humans to practice what they revile Him for supposedly not doing.
Again, how can he be alive if we have to die to see him? When we are dead are we also alive?
Yes. Dying is just a passing from one life to the next.
Col 3 1-4
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.alive
(of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead,
What to not understand. We can't be dead and alive or living. If one wants to claim that God is a spirit, knock yourself out, but claiming he is alive makes no sense.Oh, haha, I thought you had asked this question, "When we are dead are we also alive?" So that's what I was answering. I believe we are spirit, that when we die, our bodies quit functioning, but our spirits, that which makes us who we are, continues living. But then you knew that, Im pretty sure.
I'm aware of your understanding and the fact that we disagree is irrelevant, I'm just trying to understand why Chris says God is alive when he clearly doesn't meet the definition.
Maybe you are only interested in Chris's opinion, I hope it's ok for me to include myself in the conversation... but Im curious.. you know that when a person is brain dead, their bodies are still alive? And likewise, when their bodies are kept alive by machines, their minds can still be functioning... so you can understand why some of us would be of the belief that God is simply not in bodily form as you and I, but is alive and well in spirit form. More so than any human since we are still in a lesser state. We still have yet to part from these earthly vessels and into eternal ones.
No, I'm also interested in your opinion. I didn't mean to sound like that.
Hilarious, you just provided a very good argument showing spirits don't exist. Well done.
Sorry, that is entirely false, no such things as "spirits" have ever been shown to exist, let alone be responsible for how we function. We already have a good understanding of how our bodies function, which has everything to do with the physical world and nothing to do with religious delusions.
Surely ATM it's ok to believe in a spirit? Whether it's true or not. Doesn't the human value obtained from that belief justify the belief for that person?
I am playing the Devil's Advocate here.What human value can one derive from a concept that violates our natural laws? They are literally embracing contradiction and lies.
Actually, yes. I know you don't believe in the soul but I do and it all hinges on that. God is spirit and when we die our spirits will see Him.
And how does he meet the definition of alive?
(of a person, animal, or plant) living, not deadHe thinks, He moves, He has emotions, He creates. What exactly are you looking for? That He breathes? Sometimes. Jesus does. According to the Bible He's alive and gave life to every creature that has life. If you're going by some strict biological definition (and rather arbitrary at that) then you're missing it.
Nope. The Bible states that the Father portion of the Trinity (a.k.a. YHWH a.k.a. Yahweh a.k.a. the LORD in all caps) gave life to every creature, not Jesus.
John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."
The Word was with God and the Word was God... He was with God in the beginning... through him all things were made. So who is the Word?
The Greek word he used for "Word" was Logos... which was used as a bridge for the listener to relate Jesus back to God.
John 14:8-11
8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Jesus is the embodiment of God.retcon... a comic book phrase? Retroactive continuity? hmmm... Im going to have to dwell on this for a while and see if I can figure out what you're talking about. Its been a while since Ive picked up a comic book.
So its very important that the Bible be taken as a whole... you can't separate the old and new testament, any more than you can tear a novel in half and understand the beginning or end.
In the Old Testament, there was a high priest named Melchizedek... many believe this to be Jesus, as he is the embodiment of God, as I mentioned.And the word "channel" was invented with the TV, right?
/facepalm
So, who was Melchezidek's virgin mother? Because, you know, the New Testament made a pretty big deal out of the fact that Flesh!God could only have been born from a virgin, and you'd think if Melchezidek was actually Jesus, then that would mean a previous virgin birth happened and Jesus' birth would have just been old hat.Im sorry, Ive just never heard that word... I was trying to understand it... how you used it etc.
The Priest, Melchizedek, in the Old Testament was referred to as the King of Salem, Salem is translated "peace". That makes him the King of Peace. He was inherently righteous, only God was righteous, according to scripture.
This verse best explains, I think.
Heb 7:3
3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
"The Greek word he used for "Word" was Logos... which was used as a bridge for the listener to relate Jesus back to God. "
Ok, Beth. Are the perceived attributes of Jesus those that you would apply to God? Are they what you want God to be like? It seems to me that this is what Jesus was speaking about in your quote.
The Bible also states that all things that were created were created through Him and nothing that was created was created without Him. Him is very specifically Jesus in those verses (beginning of Gospel of John.)
Well, I guess since the word alive means something that God can't be as we can't be alive even if we do move on after our death perhaps you need to come up with a word that fits.
Because God does not live on this plane, He is not alive?
Maybe you have a term for being alive solely on earth?
What is it that makes you think God is not alive?
He is conscious. He is active. He has existed from the beginning of time and will never die... what about Him is not alive?
When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, was he no longer alive because he wasn't on the earth?(of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead.
Is he a person, animal or plant?Definition of GOD
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler
Im not sure why you feel it's important to fit all of life into those 3 headings.
When you speak of God "not being on this plane," this is when I can come to some agreement with you. This is the only way in which I can get an understanding of a Creator that set everything physical (and finite) into existence. I.e., some kind of force, let's call it an entity, that is not in the plane of OUR existence, therefore we cannot really comprehend it. Like the beautifully crafted table that cannot comprehend the nature of the carpenter who built the table.
Such a "Creator," in my understanding does not equate with a father-like, school master-like, disciplinarian that judges me.I have read several of your posts lately and although I have appreciated the way you do not seem to mock and you actually seem to consider some things others have shared, I have noticed one thing... You appear to come back to one single point over and over again. You seem to want to define God. You say things like "I have a problem with this" or "I can't agree with that." I understand that you are pondering and considering and I respect that, but let me say, if God is real... if He's who the bible says He is...
He is defined.
There is nothing for you to decide concerning His personality or character. It seems to me what you must decide is His reality and from there, accept or deny Him. Women are told not to marry a man with the hopes of changing him... how can we think that we will mold God like play-doh until He becomes a form we are comfortable with? You could read the Bible and pray and ask Him to reveal His true self to you. He promises that whoever seeks Him will find Him. I do not doubt you will come to understand Him if you do.Then god has broken his promise. I'm a perfect example of it.
Deleted
She has asked to see God but God has not revealed himself to her or I.
I spent the first 20 years of my life crying out to god. I did everything from asking him into my heart to saying simple prayers of supplication. As I started to doubt, I said even simpler prayers. I distinctly remember sitting down repeatedly and saying, writing and crying "Jesus, I want to believe. Please help my doubt". then as I started to disbelieve, these changed into "Jesus I want to believe. Help my unbelief". Yeah. Nothing happened. No help. No comfort. No voice. No fixed vacation plans. I was homeless, starving and isolated from my family and the majority of my friends and god did nothing for me.
If god promised to be there, like you said - he lied. Sorry to break it to you, but that promise is a lie to MILLIONS of people.So what you're saying is... when you were starving... you died.
Cause if you didn't, then you survived... and I know you will credit that to your own fortitude, or to outside help etc... but b/c you asked God for help, and survived... it just seems a simple equation to me.
You also kind of remind me of that story of that man who sits on his roof b/c a flood is coming. (Forgive me if you've heard it.) A guy on an inner tube floats past and says "Hey, big flood coming, get on, Ill save you." The guy says no, he's waiting on God. Then a guy on a boat goes by. "Get in! Ill save you!" He says no again. Finally a helicopter flies over and drops a ladder. "Sir, get in, this is your last chance. Please!" No again. He's waiting on God. The flood washes him away and he meets God face to face. "God!" He says. "Why didn't you rescue me? I was waiting on you!" God replies, "I sent an inner tube, a boat and a helicopter, what more did you want?"
You want proof of God, and daily, ppl who care about you come to your house (via HP's) and say, "JM, God loves you. He wants to free you from your sin. He wants you to know Him for who He really is. He knows what those ppl did to you, and how they hurt you, but they did not represent Him for He loves you. Please, don't close your heart. You still have time."
This is God. This is God loving you, specifically, reaching out to you... He loves you, and I love you too, or I wouldn't waste a second here. Im sorry if my jokes get on your nerves... or the way I express myself. I don't know how to be anyone else, but me, but I come here and I write and write and write so many words trying desperately to express to you that you are *wanted* by God. You have not been rejected. Don't turn your back on Him.Beth, this is probably one of the most insensitive, ignorant-based, unintelligent and arrogant things that I've ever seen you say. I doubt that you'll be able to see why, but this one stung me on a personal level - and I'm sincerely sorry that you won't get it.
I thought about this all night, and yeah - I'm still stung and upset.
It seems to me that your version of Christianity is that everything you accomplish, everything you struggle and fight for was really god doing it for you. And every time you don't succeed, it's your fault because you just weren't strong enough/didn't pray hard enough/didn't trust in god enough.
There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with that philosophy.Actually, JM, For some, it is a necessary philosophy that has been personally tested.. There are some people that have stated that they have succeeded more than they've failed when they prayed before attempting to do something..
Narcissism by proxy.
Somehow some religious folks have worked it out in their head that they are special enough to receive God's help yet others are not. Since it is THEM they believe God is helping, they see no problem with the others that are suffering while God doesn't lift a finger.
When pressed it will always be "It's God's will" or "God works in mysterious ways"
They will never see the inherent evil in watching people starve to death while planning their family vacations. Maybe because they really do think they were made in God's image and wouldn't do anything differently in the same situation.
I always thought of the God thing as more of a he kicks you out of the nest and if you can fly, good job. If not, you better figure go about learning how to do it on your own.
Then at the end, he judges you on what you've learned.I'm not sure... maybe both.
I don't think God lifts his hand very often, at least not in individual lives. I think of him more as someone giving a test than a loving parent.
He gives us our life, complete with circumstances, then sees what we do with it.
The notion of thanking God for giving me a vacation doesn't really fit with that.I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't think God simply kicked us out of the nest to figure it out. He sent Christ down to teach us how to fly and has left it up to us as to whether we will fly or not. That is the test
I agree with this too. I have a difficult time with thinking that God is THAT involved. There is a lot in the bible that points to us doing things for ourselves. I still hold to my same idea: The more one operates in principles, the less one needs miracles.I think the Christ argument is very valid.
(You've got to remember I don't believe in a trinity So Christ's caring to me doesn't necessarily equate to God's caring)You don't have to believe in the trinity to believe in Christ's example. There are some that believe that the father, son, and holy spirit are three separate entities
I know Rory, and that's what draws me towards Christianity. The teaching of Christ.
I think that's why I get in so much trouble in debates with other Christians. Christ was all about love. God... not so much. I make a distinction while other's don't. It sometimes leads to hostility.God is about love too, but God is also about justice (or was in the OT). That's why some people refer to him as a parent. Parents love their children, but still discipline them when they get out of line.. God just happens to be slightly more heavy handed
We seem to get what our Super-ego thinks we need. Strange.
I just wrote a hub called superego. Funny that you said that.
I have to go to work again. Boo. Sorry. Everyone have a good day.Chris, look objectively at the description people here give of their God and then find one that doesn't fit.
Hello? Have you finally just decided that I don't even exist any more?
I'm not talking about yourself, I'm talking about everyone else. We can't look at ourselves objectively.
I agree that it's very, very difficult but it can be done.
Of course, the flip side of your statement is the assumption that others not only CAN but usually DO look at us objectively, hence the freedom to assess diagnoses of mental illness or whatever.
Even the best of us (of which I am not) don't always assess ourselves as honestly as we might like to believe. But that is actually part of being a good member of whatever it is you're a member of, assessing your beliefs, your actions and your interactions, trying to be as honest and objective as possible.The reference was to people who have felt the complete freedom to tell me and other believers based on nothing more than their certainty of their own knowledge (not on the the knowledge they actually have) that we suffer from delusions or hallucinations. That doesn't happen so often any more but about a year or two ago that was pretty standard in the forums.
"Hi! I believe in God!"
"You should keep your psychotic delusions to yourself and not force your oppressive mental illness down the throats of people who were just minding their own business like me!"
And yet the people making that second statement honestly believed themselves to be honest, objective observers of this person who they knew almost zero about.
That was what I was trying to say.We need to look at both sides better.
You seem to be upset because you expect people to take your word that their is a God.
Two kids playing..
1. See that frog.
2. What frog?
1. The one right there on the rock.
2. I see the rock, but no frog.
1. Okay I'll pick it up for you.
2. You have nothing in your hand.
1. Are you calling me a liar?
2. Do you think I'm to stupid to know you don't have a frog in your hand.
1. Okay can you feel it in your hand, you have to want to feel and see it.
2. You are either delusional or or lying.
Sound familiar? We need to step back and look at this thing objectively, critically and without emotions.A very difficult thing for all of us to do, I suggest. We are emotive creatures. Most of our actions, reactions, decisions are made for emotive reasons.
I can decide to take an action, after having "read up all about it," and come to understand all the parameters that I need to take into consideration in my choices. Yet, at the very last moment, immediately before making my choice, some background emotion comes into play, and I go on that; what we like to call Heart Stuff, or Gut Reaction, etc.
Maybe we can get much further and more positively in our discussions if we get to recognize and respect our emotions instead of avoiding them.... what do you think?I agree completely and have been attempting just that. We do need to recognize and respect the emotive aspects of ourselves and our interactive and reactive lives. Too much gets read between the lines sometimes because the of the emotional baggage attached to many statements, by the receiver but also often by the issuer.
Except that it had little to do with what I actually said.
Yeah, that sure does sound familiar.
Oh yeah, you've just proved my point for me!
I don't know where you got that I was angry because people weren't taking my word for it, except from your own beliefs about me (not at all unlike the super-ego thing you stick to.)
What I was doing was pointing out the way it has often gone. The problem was not that people didn't take my word for that or anything else. The problem is that people who knew almost nothing about me proceeded to diagnose me with mental illness. I'm not saying you're one. I'm making a general point. What I was illustrating is that while it's true that we often don't see ourselves objectively, it's equally true that we often view others through the lens of our preconceptions, especially if there's something that we don't understand about them and we latch onto something (whether it's that they're mentally ill or just trying to fit in or that they are outright evil) that seems to explain their behavior (whether it does or not) and therefor makes us feel better.
And let me be perfectly clear. Both sides are guilty of this. In tone, if not in substance, your continued assertion that all believers are simply obeying their super-ego is no different from the preacher who pronounces that anyone not believing in Jesus simply loves their sin too much and leaves it at that. Now if that seems strong, it is. But I could have been stronger. I do think about this a lot and there are a lot of things I don't talk about because I don't want to fall into platitudes.
