There's a forum up right now about Christians who play the eternal damnation card. It bothers me, as a Christian, that anyone would say this to another human being. I am not arguing if there is a hell or not for humans, you can believe anything you want. But does anyone have the right to judge another human being on such a grand scale as that?
The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)
Your neighbor is everyone. Not just someone that carries the same faith you do. I've read the posts on this site, I know that you are attacked rather viciously at times. I've had people bite at my ankles too. It just bothers me to think anyone could believe they were so superior in their knowledge that they had the right to say this.
I just think we should all remember that when Jesus said,
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
He's talking about your face. Telling someone where you believe them to be going is offering a totally different cheek and I just don't think that was on Jesus's mind when he said it.
Anyway. That's how I feel. I would love some feedback. I've read posts from what I perceive to be very good Christians on this site and I know you don't do this. Do you see any way to help stop it?
Hi just _curious, I agree with you. We should love our neighbors even when they don't carry the same faith. No one should be told where we believe them to be going. We can tell them biblical facts what the word of God says about how to avoid hell. Jesus warned, but never threatened anyone. This was done out of compassion for all of us. Yes I turn the other cheek.
I know. I carry the same faith as you. I think the information is available, the right to believe is freely given. It's just that it doesn't appear that we represent the Love of Christ when we do this. At least not to those outside of our faith. It is considered an insult to them when we say it and it bothers me that we don't take that into account.
Oh, and so you know, you were one of the god Christians I was referring to.
Do not judge means exactly that. Love your neighbor as yourself Why are these open for interpretation? It cannot get any simpler than that can it?
Perhaps when one does not love their neighbor like they love their self, it reveals the level of love one actually does have for oneself.
I was going to give some wise crack answer to the question until I saw exactly what the topic was dealing with. I personally would not visit that forum for I agree with what you are saying here.
"Your neighbor is everyone. Not just someone that carries the same faith you do."
That is so true! I believe Christianity, as with all religions, is very spiritual. It is not a clique, or something one turns on and off like a light switch when passing through church doors. I also think it is very difficult to be a true Christian. Telling someone "where to go," is not something that is our right, nor does it have anything to do with being a good Christian.
I've never heard a true Christian tell anyone "where to go" as in "go to h-ll" as you infer.
Christians tell people how to NOT go there. Huge difference.
But people will continue, I suppose, to play their Christian-bashing games. Seems it's becoming quite popular these days, even in America. Sign of the times, reverting back to the days when they bashed Christ Himself.
Another one who never turned a cheek in her life..
How would you know what I've ever done or not done in my life?
Quite judgemental you are. And making things personal, I see, against me and others here.
Come on---either tell everyone who you really are, or else I suggest you stop making statements about which you know nothing.
But you fib.
You don't turn the other cheek at all. You are a hypocrite, in fact.
Hello pcunix. I love to say that. Since you can't hear me, it comes out like Seinfield greeting Newman. Each of certainly needs adjustment of some kind. I am certainly far from perfect. So, you have decided to join the thread and supply some constructive criticism. How kind of you. Please elaborate, for my benefit.
I think you are quite smart enough to understand. You are a hypocrite and the proof of that is all over these forums. You don't turn your cheek at all: you attack anyone who points out the reality of your fantasies.
I will add this though:
Much of the advice that supposedly came from the mouth of your apocryphal "savior" is actually good words to live by. However, this "turn the other cheek" bit is probably the dumbest thing attributed to him. Nobody CAN live like that and no one should try.
hmm. Interesting. So I think what you are saying if you have no idea what this thread is about and have no point for being here. If that correct?
I'm simply commenting on the hypocrisy 99% of the Christians here demonstrate daily.
I think, in fairness, we have to try and see that the hypocrisy goes both ways. At times, we are all a little too strong in stating our point. Some people, on both sides, go too far.
Really? So, when folks here attempt to present reality to some other folks here who deny reality, how is that hypocrisy?
Again, in fairness, there are enough people on both sides of the issue to give a reasonable person reason to believe both positions have something valid to say. I'm simply trying to be reasonable. Call me crazy. Oh wait. I believe you've already done that. Never mind.
Talking fantasy as though it were real is never valid, nom matter how many people are deluding themselves.
I was talking fairness, but you are definitely staying on topic with that intolerant view.
It is not intolerance to point out your imaginary beliefs. Intolerance would be if I wanted to prevent you from practicing your religion.
So, when people present myths and superstitions, you consider that to be valid.
Believing in myths is not reasonable.
No, I don't recall ever calling you crazy.
Sorry, you probably haven't. I guess it makes me look prejudice. Like I think you all look alike. But, whatever you feel about people of faith, you have to realize that to call their beliefs myth is seen by them as just as much an insult as you perceive when they tell you where you're headed. It doesn't bother me because I see it as no more than an opinion, but courtesy works across the board or not at all. Just an opinion.
How about if we call it an irrational delusion? It appears you do not agree with me when I told you that Jesus is a construct to help you lose your ego.
You think it is actually real?
Why is it that so many theists never add the 'd' to "prejudice" when it is needed?
It seems odd to me that so many of you do this - unless, of course, you are all sock puppets making the same error?
No, it isn't. The fact that people take their religious beliefs to be part of themselves, like their arms and legs, for example, does not mean we cannot criticize or question those beliefs, as the beliefs themselves are just ideals written by other people, just like any other ideals.
If you say you were a Republican, for example, would I not be able to criticize or question the Republican platform, the ideals they hold and the policies they lobby? Of course, people do that every day. The same would hold for religious beliefs, they are only ideals and not arms and legs.
Hence, believers are taking those ideals personally, which is their own personal problem they have to deal with, as it is not really a problem at all, by definition.
Threatening me with eternal damnation does not apply to this concept at all.
I beg to disagree. I do not remember anyone telling a Republican their party was a myth. I realize this is a difficult concept for you, but it really is simply a question of courtesy, when approached from the middle ground.
But, you know what? It just occurred to me. This is a moot point. We're in the minority. Do what you want. They're going to. I just won't worry about it when I read the bickering.
Who said anything about calling the party a myth? We know it exists. You missed the point entirely.
One can be courteous to people while tearing and shredding their ideals to pieces. That is the concept I'm trying to explain to you. If I called you personally a nut job or idiot, I am insulting you. But, if I said the ideal you hold regarding the Republican platform were stupid or idiotic, that does not have any bearing on you personally whatsoever as I am attacking the Republican platform and not you. Get it?
We tell them that their ideas are false and that their theories of government are flawed.
By the way, learn what "moot" means. I get quite annoyed when people misuse it as you just did.
In response to your last post, I do see what you're saying. I just think it is unkind because they don't, and to them it is insulting. There are just so many other ways to make the point.
It matters not whether it is considered unkind or insulting to question or criticize ideals. That is personal problem those who believe so have to deal with, they need to separate their emotional problems with those ideals.
If we didn't do that, we would never be able to discuss anything without someone being offended or insulted.
What he really means is that he needs to believe. Without Sky Daddy, he'd sink into an emotional abyss.
It's not really the insult - it's the horrible realization that we are right.
Pcunix. As I have previously stated (but I will repeat myself for those having trouble keeping up) it doesn't matter to me. I started this thread because I believed that some of the rhetoric was unkind. I believe an atheist told me he considered it offensive. It is one of my many flaws that I feel the need to attempt to correct perceived wrongs.
I am not offended, but I had believed that, in fairness, everyone would try to see the point of civility. I was wrong. Sadly.
How are we not civil? Because we challenge your beliefs?
This concept is obviously outside the bound of your reasoning. I do not know why and it would be unkind of me to speculate.
Of course, knowing how you mean this.... which position you support, I still have to chuckle when I see that your statement is held to be true by both sides of this ´debate´.
You just assume that YOU are the one 'presenting reality'
I do present reality. Believers present myths and superstitions. No believer here has ever shown their beliefs to be anything but.
As you wish, I would suggest that you are simply incapable of perceiving that which believers can perceive, and as such unable to understand, much as a man blind from birth could never really understand or describe colours in a meaningful way.
Trying to argue with that man that the sky is blue, when he has never seen the sky, would have as much substance as discussing God with yourself.
That man could only prove to himself that the sky was blue when he had received his sight back, until then he may well be content in his blindness, but still incapable of describing colours he had never seen.
Poor analogy John. You are no more capable of discerning something than I am. I have all the faculties and perceptive abilities that you do. But I wonder if you understand why this statement of yours is guaranteed to cause a fight? Do you care? I suspect not. Why? Because arguing with non believers (despite the bible instructing you not to do so) and claiming some special ability is far more important than anything else.
Which is why Christians always cause conflicts. Always have done, always will do.
Nice switch from the subject to your arena Mark, I appreciate your use of words and ability to switch subjects.
Not written to start (or further) PC's argument, why should he argue, what is to argue about, I simply stated that he is blind to what believers see, that much is evident to any believer, and yet unacceptable to any secularist, the two will never agree about these things, and in the end result it comes to a contest as the secularists attempt to silence the believers, and the believers continue to state their case.
Pointless I know, as both 'sides' know the other is wrong and are not prepared to concede one inch of ground, but I pop into the forums on occasion, when I'm bored, and waste a few moments.
Always good for getting a few extra readers and adding followers, so not a total waste, as long as one treats it as harmless fun.
Of course there is an element of fun (though much more fun for the atheists).
But there is serious intent here also. I really do have concern for isolated atheists and I really do worry about dependent theists who may suddenly find the faith that has sustained yanked from underneath them.
I actually do have some reservations about arguing with theists because of that. I'm not entirely certain that it is morally acceptable in all cases. Unfortunately, it isn't morally acceptable to leave isolated atheists wondering if they are the only rational people in the world, so I am pulled from both sides.
That is one of the reasons that I regularly set aside some space to point out that, for most, religion is quite harmless and may even do them good. I don't think it is necessary; I do believe that other systems can be equally effective in providing deep happiness, but I don't have specific anything against obtaining happiness through imaginary beings.
A blind man can indeed describe blue by the wavelengths that encompass it.
Oh, but that's science: nothing to do with spiritual babble-talk.
Yes, of course you would say that, just like anyone would say they see all kinds of things others do not see. Institutions are full of such people, often requiring medication.
I can understand that the things you claim to see couldn't possibly exist in our universe. This is a lack of understanding on your part.
So, feel free to claim you see such things.
Butterfly nets await.
aqua, Very insightful. One who is spiritually dead is incapable of perceiving that which believers can perceive.
Yes, insightful, so much so that one wonders how a believer who is "spiritually alive" is only able to perceive one god out of many, and that the only god they perceive is the same one their parents perceived, and their parents, and so on...
Funny how that works.
I can explain that, sort of. Although I think maybe you'll understand Penny's answer better. People catch a fleeting glimpse of the Divine. Some build a system of faith, keeping with the little they could see. It is, by definition, ephemeral; thus, the vast differences in opinion. We're like the three blind men explaining what an elephant is.
Y-H is considered by most of the religious world as the One. I think the monotheistic religions are just arguing over who is favorite children are.
Her answer was made up rubbish.
I really see no answers there, just an assertive and imaginative word salad.
That's because you are so obstinately refusing to step toward a tolerant middle ground. Why do you think only 8% of the world agrees with your view? Are 92% of the population crazy, in your opinion?
And, there we have the pot calling the kettle black. Since when are Christians tolerant?
That is a logical fallacy. You obviously still have not taken the time to understand fallacies and continue to use them. Not good for any debate at all.
However, childhood religious indoctrination is the only reason religions perpetuate. Without it, religions would vanish.
Ok. Let's take a step back. Throw religion out the door. Do you see a problem with just a simple, personal, not going to join an organization, this is what I have come to believe through personal experience, it's unique to me God thing?
If everyone believed in more, and you didn't; it is just hard to imagine someone with your stand ok with that. That's what appears obstinate about you. I think you'd still keep arguing the point.
You attained your beliefs from the organization, hence you wouldn't have them without it; childhood religious indoctrination.
You're wrong. I'm sorry, I realize you think I'm crazy, but that is not how I attained my core belief.
They are good aren't they? You are not even aware that you are repeating exactly the same nonsense like wot the bible tells you to sez.
Or is it the "height of arrogance," for me to say something? How funny that you repeat wot the bible sez and sez god seddit in your hed.......
Hi mark. I see you swype to. Don't you hate it when you read back and see all the typos? I know I do. What's your point? I've already agreed that the concept of Christianity was learned through man. I don't know about two thousands years ago, but it is definitely only taken on faith. It doesn't negate my belief in God. So sorry this appears to bother you.
It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the constant arguments and wars and ignorance it fosters. Sorry you hate me so much for not jumping on your bandwagon.
I don't care whose band wagon you're on. I'm not on anyone else's band wagon. I'm on a pony cart. Pretty much alone, and I can guarantee you, there's only room for one. I don't see me as the hateful one in this, or any, exchange we have ever had.
Aww - so you are not a Christian any more? What persuaded you to leave the faith?
Arghh. You're killing me here. You haven't conquered a country yet. I am Christian. I follow Christ. I don't care what anyone else does. I have no mandate to care what, or how, you believe. That may be a point that one might argue with me, but I'm too bull headed to be bullied out of what I think is right for me.
And right for me does not include trying to make you agree. It does include speaking out when I think people are being bullies
Good for you. At least you accept the bandwagon you have jumped on. Sorry it makes you so angry I do not.
But - I have morals and cannot do so.
What are you taking about? Spouting nonsense doesn't win a point. You have to be the oddest conversationalist on this site.
You do realize your statement makes no sense?
Oh dear. Good for you on the Jesus bandwagon.
To any rational person - it makes sense.
Mark, I like odd. I like you. You cannot make me mad acting silly.
Nothing silly about you jumping on the Jesus bandwagon. I cannot - because I have morals and ethics I must abide by, but I understand why you do so.
You are free to jump on the bandwagon and break as many commandments as you wish. I cannot - because I have standards - but - good for you.
Again with the silly. I don't quite get your humor, but I'm trying.
No - I don't think you are. But - I forgive you for lying about it.
Enjoy the bandwagon you jumped on.
You state above that you are not on anyone's bandwagon...
Then you go on to say:
Can you be anymore contradictory than that? Does the word bandwagon have some nonsensical meaning that I'm not aware of? And can you explain how being a Christian doesn't put you on the "Christian" bandwagon?
I'm sorry getitrite. You just don't get it right this time. Just as the religion you were raised with had nothing to do with Christianity. I fall outside of mainstream with my own views. Silly man. You could have figured that out all by yourself if you'd tried. I thought you were a former prodigy?
Really? Then, please explain how it occurred that everything the Christian organization represents was somehow implanted in your head without having any prior knowledge to it?
I have already conceded this point to you previously. I can easily accept proof that I am wrong on this point. I simply do not see the proof.
God is a completely different matter. I'm sorry it is not a point you can understand. I simply do not understand why it is a point from which to view me, or anyone who feels this way, with hatred.
The proof is in childhood religious indoctrination.
Hatred? Is there some reason you feel compelled to fabricate that?
I don't see it as a fabrication. You can be very mean sometimes. I just don't know why.
Nonsense, I am not mean at all. Perhaps, you're letting your emotions control your worldview.
I'm not sure I know how pointing out that sometimes you appear to be mean concerning the topic implies anything more than that.
Have you ever thought, for just once, to use logic, and take your emotions out of it, before you read your opponents response?
You claim not to understand most of Marks responses, yet to the objective observer, his statements are spot on.
Ahh, the objective observer. I know you aren't talking about you. You'll have to do better if you want to reach my ankle with an insult. I know you can figure it out. Just try harder.
Typical deluded response, with no value to the debate whatsoever.
And you can't stop the arrogant condescension, it just looks even more ridiculous.
It isn't arrogance or condescension getitrite when I don't stoop to the level you are attempting to come from. You are not debating. You are badgering. It is rude, so I am attempting to reply in kind, in hopes that you might see the error and allow for a more civilized tone. If this sounds condescending, please raise the level of your posts so you won't feel as if I am speaking down to you.
I agree with you that it is insulting to say such things to people. I even call it abuse when it's done to children
Oh, well that's something else entirely, and I agree. Thanks for posting.
But it is fine to fill their heads with lies about a GOOD god, right? That's ok.
I've had posts from people who probably filled their children's heads with worse things. Children raised to consistently attempt to belittle others could probably have benefited from an education that taught them love and tolerance. I agree that this does not appear to be the philosophy of some Christians, but such intolerance is not universally agreed upon.
I think children should be taught to belittle foolish ideas, don't you?
Or should the world just be filled with superstitious nonsense? Yeah, that's the way you like it: nobody threatening your fantasies.
I never feel threatened, in a civil conversation. When I do perceive a threat it is never to my belief. More to my sense of civility.
Who gets to decide who are foolish and who are not?
I guess we all get to apoint ourselves as the smart one.
What happens if one of the fools get to carry the BIG Stick?
What happens when there isn't a single wise man/womn to be found among us?
I have told you this before: I do not believe that the State should interfere with the lies parents tell children. But neither should the parents try to influence the truth we do try to teach them in our schools.
That is, by the waym why I object to religious home schooling and religious schools: the children never hear truth, just more religious lies.
Larry the Cable Guy says that; “Ya just can't fix stupid.”
Ya can't legislate it way either.
I guess we could kill all the stupid people.
But again who gets to decide who gets on that list for eradication?
I nominate myself to be added to that committee.
But before we proceed I gotta go fix a couple of busted water pipes.
I know you can't legislate away stupid.
We CAN however work to prevent another generation of fools never being taught anything but creationist twaddle. I accept that the parents have a right to try to indoctrinate their children. For the good of the rest of us, I feel we have a right and a duty to expose these poor kids to more than that.
Yes, we see this intolerance amongst Christians everywhere. Currently, one of the hot topics these days is the fact that Christians are causing so much grief to gay teens, they are committing suicide.
Argh. Intolerance is not a Christian ideal. People led down the wrong path are sad, from any angle.
It is a result of religious ideals in general, ideals that teach followers to be intolerant of others if they do not share the same beliefs.
I an so sorry you are not able to see on how many levels that argument can be used, against every system of beliefs.
True, though when scientific dogma is questioned, it doesn't start wars and non-religious people don't teach their children to, for example, hate those who don't believe global warming is man made.
No, for real intolerance, hatred and brutality, it is hard to beat religion and politics.
Of course religion does some good things too. I would hope that at least balances out the bad. I'm not sure it does when we get to politics
Of course, I see it, it is relative to every unfounded, irrational belief system. Christianity does not stand alone as the only unfounded, irrational belief system.
Ahhh. I see. So intolerance is reserved for atheists only. Nobody mentioned that before. I will certainly keep that information near to me on my journey through Hub Pages.
Yes well, considering that is something you made up and is not something I stated, it would be quite dishonest of you to perpetuate your own words as mine.
I take it you are yet another Christian that has not bothered to read the bible. Which is chock a block full of intolerance. God murders those he is intolerant of. Dear me. No wonder you cause so many fights.
I was taught to 'love my enemies' and 'turn the other cheek'. I was a bully magnet, as I was not allowed to stand up for myself
Trust me. I don't do the turn the other cheek well. I just thought the title would pull them in to talk about the issue. I don't like to see anyone make that statement. Nobody has the faintest idea what the end truth will be. I have a hard time with statements of certainty on things we have no way of knowing.
Some people think that when Jesus told us to turn the other cheek, that this was suggesting total passivity
I don't think so.
Slapping someone on the cheek was a formal insult.
Jesus didn't say that when someone is coming at you with a knife, to turn your back to them allowing them easier access.
He told his disciples to sell their purse and buy a sword.
This was so they could protect themselves.
But, he didn't tell them to go out and confront nonbelievers.
I think the disciples were told to go out and talk to those that were straddling the fence, so-to-speak, on the God issue.
Now there's a topic I've wondered about.
Yes I read somewhere that, in those days, it was a formal insult, and that in response a person could literally turn the other cheek toward the attacker in a way of daring them to slap that cheek too; it made a statement that the attacker was being a bully and dared him to keep showing himself out to be so, publicly.
But I'm not learned about the customs of that time.
...There is also something common-sense that adds to this discussion....
Sometimes NOT rendering justice for evil is good to do. And I'm not talking about just ignoring the insult. Sometimes, (although the attacker may not realize it at the time), they get mercy by NOT being literally attacked back....
I mean, seriously, some people deserve to have their hair pulled out for the things they do to others, but the victim refrains from responding in such manner. Yet they're often accused of not turning the other cheek when they simply respond to the attacker verbally. Sometimes bullies don't know how lucky they are; they're the object of mercy even though they mock the victim as being weak.
In general, though, bullies are taking a huge chance, because sometimes their victims aren't Godly nor compassionate people nor people whose psyche can go unscathed at the hand of violence; they're people who will wait for their chance to execute vengeance later in some form or other.
In my feeble minded days (Today & tomorrow) I can not remember chapter and verse but still remember the verses themselves.
It is written that when the aggressor is forgiven by the victim, this allows that person (The aggressor) to heap hot coals upon their own heads. or something like that.
Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. I have seen my attackers be punished (by circumstance) much, much more severely that I would have ever thought to do.
And some times they seem to go punished. I guess everything is served equitably in its own time.
That is the law of nature, and of God as well.
When someone offends me, I have no clue as to other things that are going on in their life, nor are they privy to mine.
And sometimes when we think that we are being done wrong, it might be that we are being paid back for a wrong that we have previously comitted to someone, which seems to be an unrelated issue.
Usually the score keeper errors in their own favor, when it comes to these matters.
You are dead on with that. Sometimes I wonder if posters aren't just venting over problems they don't feel brave enough to state in their everyday life.
I've thought something similar myself.
I have found that when people who know each other such as spouses, neighbors and such; seldom confront the main issues that they are angry about, but barely touch upon the real issues that are bothering them.
Why would the general population be any different?
You mean like the reason you make up imaginary friends?
Not just Christians, but all people have a right to judge others on whatever scale they choose.
As to a Christian message, Christians are exhorted to maintain 'righteous judgment'. Also, within scriptures, the lack of judgment in the world is lamented as one of the worldly woes.
On a personal level, judgment is much like a warning. If you are in the middle of the street and a truck is coming your way fast - and I call a warning: "Hey! If you stay there, you'll get smashed!" - are you really gonna argue that I am severe, impolite, out of touch, etc? I don't think so.
I certainly understand your point, but my point is simply that unbelief is a choice in our society. Everyone has free access to all information. Anyone seeking has endless avenues to find answers. To point this out is pointless, inhibits the free exchange of ideas and no one is unaware of the fact that they consider it to be an insult. I just don't understand why it would be said if we know the only outcome is perceived as an unkindness.
Christianity is fond of using the expression, "turn the other cheek," because it implies the meaning- to forgive; but the expression is most often properly translated to "offer the other cheek." The is, if someone hits you on the face, Jesus says you should offer his the other cheek to hit too. Many of his expressions solidify this point, that when someone does harm or injury to you, you should readily offer them the opportunity to do more harm to you. If a man tries to rob your purse, you should offer him you car too. If you don't believe that this is sincerely his line of thinking, remember he quite willingly went to his death. Now, there reason for this is that Jesus believe in an afterlife, an eternal one, and nothing that is done to someone compares to that. Life is a transitory state and doesn't matter. By not resisting evil, you both resist the temptation to believe that what happens to in life is what is important as opposed to the eternal life, you demonstrate to the person inflicting some evil on you , that there is something far more important than any harm they can inflict upon you, and that you do not feel more important than they are, you severely humble yourself before them. Remember Jesus doesn't want us to harm on another and it is a basic human drive to feel superior to another, the ego needs to feel better than someone else or others, or it feels pain. How games aim for a tie? Why does a mother allow a child to win a game, that she could easily win? Why does she allow a child to feel better than her mother in that moment? The human ego needs to feel better than, not the same as. So Jesus teaches people to offer the other cheek (for those who can). The mother doesn't win the game against her daughter, she offers the other cheek to her daughter by loosing and lets the daughter feel superior. The ego's need to feel superior is at the heart of so much pain in the world, most of it actually. If some people can take it upon themselves to willing lift others above them and surrender to need to placed above any other, then those people willing give to others what is so desperately struggled for, and less the pains to all those struggles can inflict. The also fear themselves of the ego, there is no greater peace on earth than to be free of ego's constant judgments of self, others, life and so on. This is the mistake people make in praising and raising Jesus up, it is exactly the opposite of what he would want. He would want to be put below every single person ever. He would want to be last in heaven not first. Remember he humbled himself tot he world. The problem is people can the truth of his philosophy without intrinsically raising him up in their esteem. If you stepped into heaven you'd find on the most glorious throne, what we'd consider the worst human being. Yet, Jesus, you wouldn't see, he'd be the lowest amongst them. He and the father are one, and the father will let us win the game, because we need to win, he doesn't.
While I agree that no human being has a right to be the final judge of another human being, God who created us does. If you take the Bible seriously, then you have to see in it a theme that humanity was created by God but chose to go against Him. The fall of mankind and its results are all through the Bible. The New Testament clearly shows Jesus as the answer to the sin question and the ultimate consequence of sin which is death and eternal separation from a Holy God, who hates sin. This same Jesus whom you are quoting talked about hell as well as heaven. No matter what you perceive hell to be, Jesus claimed that it existed. Most people know John 3:16 which tells us that "God so loved the world that He gave us His one and only son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life." That chapter also tells us in John 3:36 : "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life, and he that believes not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on Him."
Jesus' mission on this earth was not just to be a good teacher and preacher about how to love. His mission, was to die on a cross for sinful humanity, in order to bring them back to a right relationship with a holy God.
While I think that many people go about witnessing in the wrong way, teaching the gospel according to the Bible is going to be offensive to a lost humanity because they simply don't believe that they are lost. But if you want to teach the whole counsel of Jesus and the other Biblical writers, you cannot leave out the fact that the gospel or good news is so good ,because the bad news is so bad. Man, without Christ is lost. He needs to be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus Christ.
It wasn't me that said it. I am quoting the Bible. If you accept the Bible as God's Word to mankind, then God said it.
I accept the Bible as God's word. I think Jesus's words were given to us as our way to view the world. Love God, Love Your Neighbor is first and foremost according to him. I think more people would be compelled to see the beauty of God if we tried harder to emulate the Love of Christ as opposed to Paul before the road to Damascus. This is just my opinion.
I do realize the atheists can make this difficult at times with their posts.
You think, and you all give it good lip service, but you don't actually do any of it, do you?
I will not speak for myself but I know a lot of fine Christians who are the most loving people that I have ever met. I am sorry that you don't know them. You are missing out.
I do know some and I admire them greatly. They aren't a bit like any of you.
I know lots of Loving people...Christian and Non Christian...The diffence is...the Non christian types don't try to change who I am or how I choose to view the Divine...This is not true of all Christians...Sometime to love something you must let it go.. or in this case let them live how they choose..."loving" someone but always pointing out the "danger" they are in can result in a hatred of you and then all of your "love" falls on deaf ears... The bible says to spead the good word of the Kingdom of God....so that all might have a chance at salvation...this does not mean to point out that you feel they are a sinner...that is not our jobs... our job as tasked to us by Jesus...was to spread the good word of the Kingdom of God only....
We have heard the nonsense. We do nott need to hear it again.
Salvation from...Insert as you so choose...personally I lean towards peace and happiness here on earth...I know lots of people currently living in "hell" and I know others that live a blissfully heavenly life...There are two ways to live life...either Live in Life or you can suffer in Death...and both of those can happen long before your body actually dies...
And yet the Bible teaches salvation from sin very clearly. That is my source. Whatever you choose to believe is up to you but you cannot claim the Bible as your source. Of course, maybe you don't.
The Bible teaches, Pauls version of salvation from sin... Jesus talks about how to reach the Kingdom of heaven...And we are to be a guide for others to follow...Are you qualified to be an expert on the interpretation of the bible? Do you only follow the New testament? Or do you follow the whole bible to include the Apocrypha. If you follow the Teaching of Jesus properly you will follow a more Jewish stand point of faith in God...If you follow the teaching of Paul then you are not following the Old laws of God...which would imply that God has changed his mind about his Laws...
The Old Testament was very harsh on sin. "The soul that sins, it shall die" for example. And God did not change His mind regarding His law. Rather Jesus came to perfectly fulfill the law. He, being the perfect Son of God was the only one who could. Through His death and faith in it Jesus makes us new creatures. And one day we will be totally free from sins effects.
By the way, Paul was a Pharisee and knew the Old Testament very well. And Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God included those who would not enter into it and also teaching about hell and judgment for sin. You cannot teach people about the Kingdom that Jesus taught without these things.
As far as my qualifications are concerned, I might ask you the same thing. What I teach concerning the Bible is not exclusive to me but has been taught by many people before me for over 2000 years. And they had their critics as well.
I'm puzzled by your line of thought here and am struggling to see how it resembles an explanation.
There are indeed some contradictory changes from the old to new testaments/covenants where it does in fact appear god has done a flip flop on his law.
How is the changing of the word of god the same as his son fulfilling the law? That makes no sense.
Perhaps if you would site some examples of what you are talking about, I would be better able to answer your question. Site the contradictions and we can go from there. And by the way, it was Jesus who said He came to fulfill the law and not to destroy it. The law was given to show the world their sin and the need for a Savior. Jesus came as that Savior. The Old Testament showed God's hatred of sin. In the New Testament Jesus showed God's love for sinners and His desire to save them from the consequences of their sin. The Old and the New Testaments are not contradictory but complimentary. They show two sides of the same coin.
One of the most obvious is the old testament; 'an eye for an eye' while the new testament says to 'turn the other cheek'.
That's an obvious contradiction, or else you're using the term "fulfill" to mean something completely different. Jesus would have to have "fulfilled" the law stating 'an eye for an eye' and not change that to something entirely different.
No they don't, that is obvious to anyone who has read them.
All the dietary laws. The stuff about not suffering witches to live, selling your children into slavery, buying slaves, animal sacrifice, putting people to death if they work on the Sabbath, not cutting your hair (all this from http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp, by the way).
All ignored, in spite of it being the most definite written word of old Imaginary Pal.
Why ignored? According to just_curious, because that first part was written by confused people (I'd just all them liars). But the second part? Oh, no, THAT wasn't written by confused liars. Of course not!
I'll give that one a shot. And mind you, I'm no theologian, so it will obviously be simple.
As to the contradictions in the law you speak of, those were problems with man's understanding of God's intent when he gave the law. After centuries of adding ridiculous rituals and enforcing what they believed to be the Law of God with a rather heavy hand God, in His mercy, saw that the a Israelites weren't quite getting it.
Jesus fulfilled the law by explaining the intent of the law. Love.
I'm sure there's more to it than that, and we will soon hear about it from another hubber, but that part is the most important, or at least that's what Jesus said.
And I agree that the teachings have been around for many years...And yes Paul claimed to be a pharisee as well as a jew and also a roman citizen. As for my qualifications...as I have told others...I hold a PH.D. in Biblical Studies from Regent University's School of Divinity (and yes for those joker types this is a Doctorate in BS...LOL)and I am currently working on my BA in Religions from Saint Leo's. And you are correct...Jesus did not come to change the Law but to Fulfil it...Yet Paul teaches that the old law is not required...But now you live under grace...Jesus died to forgive the "Sins" of old...The first sin...which is why we now have access to enternal life...we no longer are held under the Death in sin...Through repentance of sin and belief in the fact that Jesus was in fact the son of god...a person now has access to heaven "and god" through Jesus the Christ...Sin Sacrifices are no longer required after the birth of children (33 days for males and 66 days for females...after giving birth a woman was considered unclean for this amount of time and was not allowed in the temple). And any person who willfully sins is in danger of "death" repentance for sin is for sins committed unknowingly...not for willfully committing a sin and expecting to have automatic forgivness...
I must say, your credentials are impressive. I will not site any of my degrees but I do have some. They are not as impressive as yours however.
The changes you've noted here are exactly because Jesus has fulfilled the law. We are no longer required to offer sacrifices, for instance, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for sin to which these sacrifices were pointing. If you hold all of those degrees you have heard of progressive revelation where God has progressively revealed His plan of salvation throughout history until finally it is fully revealed through Christ and his sacrifice. God has always been a God of grace as he was with Noah who found grace in the eyes of the Lord. And Abraham whom God promised to make into a great nation through whom all nations of the earth will be ultimately blessed. There are many examples of God's grace in the Old Testament. However, God's grace is fully seen through Christ and His ultimate sacrifice.
Also, neither Paul, nor any of the New Testament writers taught that salvation means that you willfully commit sin with no consequence. Just look at Ananais and Sapphira in Acts 5 and the man who had relations with his Father's wife in I Corinthians 5. What Christ does offer is a chance to become a new creature, a new humanity, that ultimately will be people like Jesus Himself. We will fully realize this when Christ returns and changes our bodies to be like His own glorious body.
Until then we will wrestle with sin. And when we sin, we need to confess it and, as Jesus Himself said, "Go and sin no more."
In the Old Testament God's people, from Abraham to Moses Himself, willfully sinned and received God's forgiveness. Just to name one, I site David and Bathsheba. By the law both David and Bathsheba should have been stoned. But God was gracious, even though you see the consequences of that sin in David's life. For instance, David's first baby by Bathsheba died.
The reason God could be gracious was that He was looking to the ultimate act of grace and forgiveness from sin in the death of Christ. The Old Testament sacrifices merely covered sins. Jesus took sin upon Himself and gave us His righteousness.
The more you look at the Old and New Testaments the more you see how they compliment one another. What we see in the Pauline revelation is not a contradiction but the completed revelation of what all the Old Testament was pointing to. Much of it was a mystery, never before revealed until Paul. Paul himself said this. But revelation received from Jesus Christ Himself, nonetheless.
I am not going to disagree with your version of understanding of the Bible, because we each understand it differently or have been taught it differently...The whole point I have been trying to make here...Is that there are two sides to every story...what the bible actually teaches and what is being practiced today for the most part is not the same.. if it was, we would only have one denomination of christians instead of over 30,000.
Yeah, people who have spent large amounts of time studying absolute nonsense really are something to marvel at.
I study for the Knowledge (into History)...and since Religion has shaped our current world and history, I find it relevent. Just the same as Study of the Sciences...I also has an AS in Electrical Engineering. Which is why I can understand and relate to your Thread on why you believe there is no god. I have noticed that you hold knowledge in high regard...But as I have told the christians as well...To understand the whole story you need to know both sides of it...One cannot claim complete knowledge in something if they refuse to listen (or Learn) both sides...Learn and understand both sides and then you can make an respected educated theory for your arguement. Physical can't prove the Spiritual nor can Spiritual prove Physical...
Just as a Side note...I didn't do my studies for anyone else but me...But then again I don't attempt to argue a Point that I have no training in...I just read and attempt to learn...
I like you PC.. you have very good points that you make...However, insulting someones choice of education is slightly on the rude side in my opinion.
If you are studying ALL religion and learning from it, I certainly do not hold that as a useless task.
In fact, I wish more of the history of religion were taught in schools - it might cut down on fundamentalists.
The problem I have is that many of these Theology majors really learn nothing. They don't see where their beliefs came from or how silly it all is when you look at the whole panorama.
In other words, studying it is great. Believing any of it is where you lose my respect.
(although I will add that studying theology has turned many a would be priest into an atheist. That some still go on to be priests is mind boggling)
You are correct...I study all religions...And I agree that if you just follow what you are taught blindly without actually learning for yourself then you have really learned nothing.. you have just memorized information. I have also studied the Qu'ran and other sacred texts in great detail as well...I am very interested in history...Many people who are christians today have absolutely no idea where or how their faith came to be...Most have no idea about the history even behind the bible they so blindly follow ( I say Blindly because they know nothing of it beyond what they was taught. The funny part...Almost all religions are basicly the same...Problem is the followers are so blinded by beliefs they can't see that...
The politics of religion is a fascinating study all by itself. But most avowed Christians know nothing of the battles that created their creed.
You are correct...There was a study done not long ago by one of the major news networks on how much people know about the bible/religion. the Atheist/Agnostic were the most knowledgable...I won't go into details as I am sure you can find the study I am refering to...Lets just say that it is pretty sad when someone is asked XXX amount of biblical questions as they are walking out of the church and they can only answer about 15% of them...
Yes, and of course I'm aware of that study and most Christians are not.
One time I asked a christian a bunch of questions about Jesus. After he struggled with most of them...I asked this question...How can you claim to be Christian (christ like), when you know nothing of the Man or his teachings? How can you tell me the "message of god" when you don't even know it? Needless to say, I hurt his feelings.
But it's typical. You can't catch them quite so easily here as they can run to Google, but most of them are nearly clueless about their professed religion.
I am the person who don't care how you believe...god or no god...But if you do claim to be a spiritual type person and are trying to "save" others by "teaching" them your "truth" then you should at less know what your truth is...so you can at least talk with some knowledge of the subject...Just my humble opinion... It is kinda hard for me to convince someone of something if they know more about the facts than I do.
I have a complicated view. I think religion is needed for some people. I also think that it can do good for society. Unfortunately, it can also do harm to society and to individuals.
I very deliberately heckle and annoy theists here. In real life, I leave them alone unless they trespass into my life.
My purpose here is both self amusement (watching the discomfort of theists when their noses are rubbed in religious contradictions and errors is fun) and as a icon for other atheists who may feel very alone in the world.
But I will defend theists also when atheists say untrue things or look to prohibit belief. Some things are more important than being right and the right to religious freedom is one of them.
I would agree that today, the average Christian knows less about his faith than in years past. And I agree that everyone, whether Christian or not, needs to know why they believe what they believe and not blindly follow someone. The truth is, because there are so many entertainment venues in our society, many people don't read or study anything. Just look at Jay Leno and his segment called Jay Walking, where he interviews the average citizen about things that should have been learned in grade school. Most people interviewed are totally clueless.
It may be funny, but it is also a sad commentary on the society in which we live.
Just a point of clarification on that one. The physical can indeed demonstrate well beyond a shadow of a doubt that the spiritual (as defined by believers) cannot possibly exist in the physical world. That would also mean that anyone in the physical world would never be able to observe a spiritual realm, hence would never be able to come to any conclusions based on their observations, considering there aren't any observations to make.
The body and the mind both exist in the physical realm...I can prove your body exists because I can use my 5 senses to prove that fact...However your mind is another matter...I can only assume that your mind exists because you tell me your thoughts...And since the body is physical and the mind is more "spiritual" would you agree that I cannot prove that your mind is real using physical means...and neither can I prove your body is real using "spiritual" means...I can "observe" emotions within myself and visually observe emotions in others. so I would say that I can see the "spiritual" in the physical realm...I just can't prove it...
Just because someone appears sad (the emotion), does not mean that they are...
There is no spiritual component to your mind. We can prove that by damaging it - it entirely depends upon the physical.
And if you completely damage my mind am I the same person I was before??? The body is the same...But is what makes me me the same??? And I can damage your Mind two ways...I can physically damage your brain or I can damage your mentality...If this wasn't the case why would we need psychologists or psychiatrists? Either way the damamge is done it changes who the person "is" not so much the exterior body.
Either way, there is no spirit.
The ability to change you with drugs, knives, cancers, whatever proves thar.
There is no spiritual aspect. Period.
Hold the phone there, the mind is not spiritual at all, it is completely physical in every way, shape and form. If there is a "spiritual" component you are aware that other are not, please show us where it is and how it works?
I'm not sure if you can but many others certainly can prove the mind is using physical means to work.
Sorry, but emotions are entirely physical, biochemicals that are triggered and released by the brain into the body, that is what provides you with emotions.
Not sure what that means or what point your making.
So you are just a machine...inputs equals outputs...you are no smarter than anyone else you just have different inputs that effect the outputs that you have...you are an animated mass of cells that functions purely because it has to, until it no longer receives input or until it malfuctions and ceases to work again.
A person who is brain dead, the body can still function if attached to artificial means. But the person you knew is no longer there.
And if in fact you truly believe everything as you state it...then you are suggesting that humans are on the same plane as my computer...because it conducts the same functions as you have stated based on the programing that I have given it. We are all robots...
Theists and Atheists are mostly the same...Neither side is willing to be open minded enough to even acknowledge that either side has validity in thier beliefs...
It is my opinion...that science is also a religion...and Knowledge is its "god"
And I for one think both Science and "religion"(faith in something not seen) has its place in society...It is when you take one or the other to the extreme that you begin to have problems...
Why do you assume I am no smarter? I am demonstrably smarter: my logic circuits are far superior to most.
That "science is religion" quote shows a marked misunderstanding of science or religion. In your case, it has to be science as you are well schooled in religion.
"brain dead" is a very inaccurate term. If the brain were truly dead, so will be the body.
Nothing you said changes anything - in fact, it just adds weight to the obvious fact that there is no "spirit".
I am assuming nothing...if we all as, Beez puts things in his reply...then the fact remains...we are all the same, just our inputs and outputs vary...thus no-one is "smarter" than the other...they just have different software and are programmed to output something based on input received.
And if you notice I said that in my opinion science is a "religion". Notice the quotations (implies simularities to)
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
(just one definition of course)
Source from: dictionary.reference.com
and the fact that I clearly stated it was my opinion... I understand science quite well...
And "brain dead" is a common term used to describe people who no longer have brain functions and are kept alive by use of machines.
Science doesn't have fixed beliefs. Religion does. It is utter nonsense to say that they are equivalent.
The Law of Gravity is not a fixed belief? Relativity? Science is quicker at accept changes based off of proven scenarios where as religion seems to take forever to change its thinking...
And I didn't say the were equal...I said by definition of religion...they are simular...
No, the Law of Gravity is not a fixed belief at all. In fact, there are things about gravity that current models don't handle. Like everything else, it is subject to revision.
You've done the typical happy talk "I'm ok, you're ok" with this religion/science nonsense.
Religion is not science and theists are NOT "ok".
I don't suspect they are "fixed beliefs" but rather they are a strong confidence and understanding of nature coupled with well-defined physical principles and characteristics built on a solid foundation of mathematics, tested with observations and experiments all agreeing within unequivocal and accurate precision. Just to clarify.
In that both are attempting to seek answers to the world around us, I would somewhat agree a similarity is there.
I was trying to work with DoubleScorpion's response in that some similarity exists there. After thinking about it, I could sort of see a similarity in that the bible, for example, provides answers to the world around us with a creation story while science provides answers to the world around us using evidence. I suppose the fact that both of these sources have provided some answers, the questions originally sought were implied.
That would be somewhat accurate in a round about way, yes.
If the brain is damaged, it cannot function correctly. How does that fit in with the mind being spiritual? If the mind was spiritual, no physical damage could occur and it should still function normally, unless you have another explanation?
I wouldn't say we are all robots. I would submit though, that if you had grown up your entire life in which the people in your environment believed something very deeply, something that couldn't be shown or seen in any way other than through having pure faith in the belief that it did in fact exist and despite any evidence to the contrary, this would be a type of programming. If all one ever did was go through life regurgitating and fulfilling a pre-written script, they would indeed be a robot.
The clear distinction are those who instead use critical thinking skills, logic and reason in order to facilitate a better understanding of the world around them, never following a pre-written script.
I would have to ask you what exactly are the beliefs atheists hold in which they are not open minded before I can answer that question?
That's an interesting metaphor. I have thought and discovered of several varying fallacious and valid solutions to it. Well done.
Considering science is merely a method and process of understanding the world us, I see no problem with taking that to the extreme. Why not have an "extreme" understanding? What harm would that do?
For the most part we seem to agree disagreeably...We have different views is all...
Extreme knowledge is never a bad thing....Requiring others to hold the same knowledge gets us into trouble...
Atheist hold the belief that there is no beliefs (in gods that is) If this wasn't true then we wouldn't be talking...No need to debate something that isn't there...
And you make some good points and have given me a few more things to think over...Always good talking with you...
How does science require belief?
Science proposes theories and applies some to real products.
You use your computer - science doesn't force you to believe anything about transistors, does it?
But religion DOES use force.
Do you believe that the Medication you take will correct the ailment? If so then you had to first believe that it would work prior to knowing that it would work for you...Otherwise you would have never tried it...
And you are correct I don't have to believe or even know anything about transistors for me to use a computer...But despite the fact of my believe or knowledge...the computer still works...Which is how faith works for those who believe...
And you are right...In the past Religion used extreme force to expand its beliefs and practices...Nowadays it is all words and actions...very few people are killed today except by extremists...to make them go away one only has to stap interacting with them...
Science is doing the same thing...Everytime I watch my favorite channel..History Channel... I am exposed to both Science and Religion...But I choose the program I wish to watch...
back in the day science had a few deaths to its account as well...Not to the extent of religion....
But to be fair...Einstein was instrumental in the creation of the atom bomb...Science might not kill people per se...but it does allow for those who use it a more efficient means of accomplishing that goal...
And all this is supposed to have something to do with your ridiculous claim that science is equivalent to religion?
Where is the worship? Where is the faith? Science is the exact opposite of religion, which is why it has been driving it into ever less defensible territory for thousands of years.
Yes, I understand that some people are weak and need religion to comfort them. That's the placebo they are fed.
Science offers reality.
Again I never said they were equal....Only simular...
Do you hold science to be above you.. something that requires understanding? That is worship...(in my opinion)
Do you believe that with enough time and the right tools or materials that you can find the answers to certain questions? That is faith...(in my opinion)
And religion seeks to become one with or alike to the "god" that is worships...
People state based off of religious beliefs...Religion states nothing..it is a belief system only...
And just so you know..I am not a Christian...I don't claim to have all the answers...I am simply expressing what I see to be simularities between people, faiths and beliefs. My opinions only...
No, I do not think of science as "above" me. Science is a tool., like algebra and a screwdriver.
I know that, given time, we can always improve our knowledge. The knowledge may always be imperfect, but if it becomes perfectly practical (that is, we can predict and do whatever needs doing), that's close enough for me.
I see the disagreement as a misunderstanding of how the mind works and it's function with the body. I think that a better understanding of this on your part will easily dispel that confusion.
How so would it get us into trouble?
Ah yes, I see. Would you accept the possibility that atheists don't hold a belief in gods because it was a reasoned and rationalized conclusion based on facts and evidence?
My pleasure sir, I have been reading your posts and you appear to be a smart guy.
I like this argument,
Perhaps you could define the word "mind" though - do you mean "brain"?
And "spiritual," as well. What does this mean please? Because "emotions" means "emotions" yet you seem to be saying that emotional reactions are the same as "spirits."
I can absolutely use physical means to provoke (and therefore prove) an emotional response. Emotions are measurable in that there are physical indicators - this is what you are sensing when people "appear" sad. You don't see the emotion - you see the physical reactions.
So - I don't see how the one can exist without the other. You would not "know" I am "sad" unless you saw me cry.
You crying could be caused by physical pain...not sadness (emotional pain)...I still don't "know" unless I asked...
And I agree there are physical indicators of emotions...but exactly which emotions can only be truly know by the person having them...we can only assume what they are feeling...
Spiritual is simply used in the context as anything that isn't defined as physical (able to touch, see, hear, taste, smell)...
I see. So math is "spiritual" in that case? I cannot touch, see, hear, taste, or smell a number which makes this definition completely meaningless. I take it musical appreciation falls under the same category. I like Mozart - therefore God exists?
I have never said that god exists...I cannot ever even hope to prove that. I am simply saying that there is a diffence between physical and spiritual...
Yes. One is real and the other is imaginary.
Quite a difference.
But "spiritual" seems to be - according to you - "Spiritual is simply used in the context as anything that isn't defined as physical (able to touch, see, hear, taste, smell)..."
Which includes maths and other abstract concepts that do not exist in reality.
So - spirituality does not exist. This would be the crucial difference - one exists - and the other does not. So - yes - I agree - they are different.
Hmm...Math and other abstract concepts do not exist in reality??? So they are in the same category as god...as god doesn't exist in reality either...
This arguement doesn't support your cause as it is written... So I shouldn't believe in math or numbers because they cannot be physically proven to be real?
Just trying to clear up what "spiritual" means. I asked you what it meant and you said:
So - I asked a question. As this description of yours also includes many other things such as maths. You cannot touch , see, hear, taste or smell a number.
I never said anything about believing or not believing in maths. I just wanted to know if maths would be included as "spiritual."
Or maybe you could try another way of defining "spiritual."?
The Old Testament wasn't always harsh on sin...Cain killed Able and God only banished him and even protected him from reprocussion. Moses killed an Egyptian and God made him a Prophet and Leader of his "chosen people" Abraham commited Adultery with his wifes maid and God still made him the Father of many nations...Joseph told futures and read dreams (considered withcraft today) and God made him ruler over all that Pharoah owned. Jacob tricked his brother out of his Birthright and God made him Israel and took the 12 tribes from his sons...Shall I go on....Of course if you were not his "chosen people" then of course things like the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gommorah happen, not to mention the thousands killed so that the Israelites could have land to live on...instead of them buying it with all the riches taken when they left Egypt.
I think I answered most of this in another post. The Old and New Testaments both show Gods grace and His hatred of sin. And you didn't have to be His chosen people to be shown either one of these. I site the book of Jonah where Jonah was sent to Ninevah, the capital of Assyria. Jonah was sent to preach to these people. He was reluctant but God finally got him there any way by way of a great fish. Assyria, as you probably know, was the Gentile nation that conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel later in 722 B.C. God showed grace to a whole city of pagan people after Jonah's preaching caused a city wide repentance.
No, it is not our jobs to point out that people are sinners. God has done it. We simply teach what the Bible says about sin, salvation and entrance into the kingdom of God and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
There must be some interest or you wouldn't keep reading and replying to my posts. Your interest is most likely just to counter attack with your own point of view, but you cannot say you have no interest.
We can spread the word of the Kingdom of God...When the Holy Spirit comes to someone they will receive the understanding...we don't need to "teach" them anything...
Personally I just love to discuss (not argue) the things of God,and sometimes I know some people although they never comment, may just be reading.
I also think it would be a very boring world ,if we all thought the same way ,so even though I may think ,some posts are crazy (as no doubt someone thinks of mine) I dont hate ,or hope they go to hell.
I enjoy religious studies...I actually hold a very open mind concerning the Divine...It is my opinion that is something that is very personal, and while if someone wants to know more about how I view things I will be glad to discuss...It does concern me when people only choose to view only one side of a discussion. And assuming that someone has no background in the teachings of the bible or an understanding of it, is not a wise thing....you know what they say when you "Ass u me" something
The Bible says that "How shall they hear without a preacher?" God has sent people out into this world to preach and also to teach what He has to say in His Word. We need preachers and teachers because they are Gods instruments that the Holy Spirit uses to spread His word to humanity.
That is so untrue pcunix. I've told you I love you. You just won't love me back. I know we joke around, rather harshly at times, but you're warming up to me. I can see that.
you came out of your thread to find me. That warms my heart.
Believe me, I cannot begin to express my opinion of you without getting banned from the forums.
Hmmm, I'm not feeling the love here. Let's work on that. Shall we?
Not going to happen.
By the way, your score is in danger of falling below 75. If you don't link out to anything of your own, that doesn't matter, if you do, it does and you need to improve it.
Now that's love. Thanks pcunix. That was so sweet of you to share that. I have no idea what you mean, but you are obviously trying to be helpful. I'm still learning this place.
Which means you aren't here to earn money or drive traffic somewhere else. So why are you here? To battle atheists? So far you haven't done very well at that, have you?
You're so cute. I'll be honest, you have sidetracked me considerably. Its been a hoot, but I should try to get to work. I went in and linked to stuff, like you suggested.
If I promise to try harder, will you promise to try to be nice?
If by "nice", you mean not saying anything derogatory about religion, then no, I won't be nice.
No, I would never expect you to step away from your personal views. I suppose we simply have a different opinion of the definition of derogatory. Although it has been my experience that our society, at large, tends to define the term as I do; it is well within your rights to define words as you see fit.
Derogatory? Ahh, I see where you are going with this one.
As you have so succinctly pointed out, I have some trouble following the concept of turning the other cheek when responding to some of the atheists posts.
But if you have noticed, I am more than willing to listen when someone presents what appears to be a valid point, in a nonconfrontational manner.
I've apparently got issues too. I'm working on them.
Where was I going with it?
We all have issues that we are working on, I am sure.
As a matter of interest - have you ever known a real christian? You know - one who actually turns the other cheek and gives the man who steals his coat the hat and gloves to go with it?
Because I think this is a valid point - I have never, ever once met a Christian who demonstrated the values they preach. Never - not once.
In all fairness Mark ,could it be your looking in the wrong crowd?
Really? Are you saying you turn the other cheek and would give the thief the rest of your belongings?
Are you a real christian?
Yeah, because if so, I'd like to go visit a church where a bunch of these kind people pray and ask them to give me the contents of their wallets.
Turning the other cheek translated, (IMO) is to not retaliate (even though one may be justified in doing so)
i.e Person turns in front of me to grab car park after Ive sat there with my indicators on clearly first in line. I drive on, find a new park, count to 10 etc and 'turn the other cheek'
Not turning the other cheek ,would see me ,give the other person a piece of my mind ,increasing the volume and pitch of my voice to extend clear across the carpark where a small crowd had now gathered..
Just sayin...I really love Christ , I leave the judgement up to God as to the 'realness'
So - another "no" then. Changing the meaning of "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
to mean "don't retaliate," is stretching it a bit.
Why would you need to translate something that is perfectly clear - oh - wait - that means you do not have to be Christ like.
Seems I was looking in the right places after all.
Ahh perception is reality ? Really ? Nooooooo....say it isnt so.
Like I said Im leaving the judging up to God. I dont know that he needs your help Mark ,but I could be wrong.
Head knowledge is well heady.
We have been created to use our minds and hearts too (holistic)
Gosh you remind me so much of Saul (or later became Paul) Mark!
Of course you leave the judging up to god. That way you do not have to follow what the bible says or take responsibility for your actions.
Perhaps now you understand why I despise your religion and have absolutely no respect for those that claim to follow it and "perceive" the words to mean something other than what they actually say.
It would appear believers are not following up on their gods expectations. Using your mind means to think, not just believe.
I think the definition of a good christian would be one who understand they need to continually remember there is a log in their eye and work on it. No one is good, all the time. I, myself, could only lay claim to that title maybe (and this is giving myself more room for credit than I probably deserve) a couple of times in my life.
As to following in the footsteps of Christ on issues concerning the poor and homeless I do what I can, but that will never be as much as I should.
I will take that as a "no," then.
Yes - I understand that Christians do not actually have to follow Jesus' instructions to call themselves Christians. That is one my major issues with your religion. It is a dishonest, "Do as I say, not as I do," type religion that teaches you you are incapable of emulating Christ - but it does not matter if you don't.
Religion teaches or arrogantly demands power,status and self righteousness.
The Pharisees and Saducees were fine examples of Holier than thou leaders and followers of a Religious system -not Christs teaching(there are many examples of Christ admonishing them throughout the Bible).
Christianity on the other hand look to Jesus Christ as their Lord and for repentance and NOT a religious system (usually run by men satisfied to hold onto tradional man made rules and rituals.
None of which make a person better than the next, and certainly are not requirements that seem to impress God.
In fact Jesus refered to them as swines and dogs.
I understand what you are saying in your last sentence Mark,but this is also known as the Grace period and even though it appears some people Say with their lips one thing and do quite another in action ,the time will come when the Grace period will be over, and every life exposed.
Mark, I see your point, however; I don't know if you have read the New Testament, but there is room for differences of opinion on it's intent. I see love, others see whatever they see. Had I a greater piece of the Divine within me I could easily be a better person. It's a struggle I work on. What anyone else chooses to do with their own life is for them to decide. No one has the same journey to make. It's what makes the world interesting to me.
I find you interesting, no matter what you may have gleaned from my posts.
I have read and studied the new testament - yes. My point is - I have never met anyone who followed the teachings - ever.
Neither have you, apparently.
See - that is the difference between us - to you it doesn't matter that you do not follow the teachings - you get a free pass because Jesus died for your sins. And you call this love. Eaglekiwi changes the meanings of the words so she doesn't have to follow it either. You all do it - because you have a free pass.
It matters to me - and I think this teaching is a "bad thing."
So - I speak against it. Show me a billion "real Christians" and I am all over this religion thing because we have a great society with ethics and standards I could get on board with.
But - as it is - we do not. All because of the silly free pass idea. What a shame we chose to pervert ourselves so badly and this teaching (along with the other abominations you call love) is so far removed from the "natural order" of things it will eventually destroy us.
I don't believe in free passes. I know Jesus is our mediator, but mediators don't always side with you. I don't know what will happen when we die. I do believe that God is merciful. People who don't believe in the resurrection this far away from it could not be held accountable for eternity because of their non belief. It makes no sense.
If you believe someone is not a Christian because they refuse to toe the party line then I see why you would consider me a non Christian. I just don't see it that way.
No - I consider you not to be a real christian because you do not observe and practice the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you did - I would have enormous respect for you and your religion.
But - I think your belief that god is merciful and will forgive you for not doing so is the root cause of the problems in our society and the teachings propagated in the bible are evil and wrong.
Of course you don't see it that way. That would mean you actually have to turn the other cheek, give the thief the rest of your belongings and love thy neighbor as you love yourself.
Don't need to though - do you? As long as you accept that you are not perfect - you are good to go.
Mark, I appreciate your posts more than you know. Out of a sea of comments that I consider frivolous, you make a valid point once in a while. If you honestly believe that it is within the ability of anyone to walk directly in the footsteps of Christ, you have more faith in man than I do.
So, the question now is, since you have determined that I'm not a Christian; don't you have work elsewhere?
Of course it is possible to do. Why do you think the Cathars were destroyed? Why do you think the bible was re-written to persuade you that there is a God and you do not need to be Christ like?
Did it myself for a while - but now I need to interact with the real world. When I am done doing what I need to do - I will probably go back to it, but - for now - I have responsibilities and I have never managed to be in the two mind-sets at the same time ("serve two masters" in your language.)
What a shame your faith is only strong where it comes to the easy bits. Given up already I see. As long as you know you are not perfect and say the majik words - all good.
I do not agree with you, but if you were a minister at one time, good for you. If you were a priest who was forced out, then I say it was most likely good riddance.
I will say, I hope you not consider returning to the ministry. Such outlandish views are unfair, in my opinion. They alienate people on both sides of the fence and they are not scriptuallly relevent, nor do they serve our Lord in any way, other than to His detriment.
Just thoughts from your idea of a non Christian.
So your Imaginary Pal is afraid of Mark too.
What are you talking about? I never was any such thing - nor did I say I was.
What outlandish views are these? That none of you self-professed Christians follow what the bible says?
Of course not. Because that would inconvenience you. So, in spite of your deep and aboding faith, when it comes down to your comfort vs. your imaginary gods words, you'll choose your comfort every time.
Pcunix, perfection is difficult. Other than Mother Teresa I can't think of anyone within Christianity I could point to that came close in my lifetime.
I realize being an atheist means the world is your oyster, and whatever you do is cool. I'm struggling to be a Christian. I openly admit this.
I appreciate having my obvious faults pointed out. Keeps me grounded. You are providing a valuable service.
Sorry, I know you wish I would join a nunnery and leave you to pick at other theists. Not the life for me. I prefer being four cats in a window. I think God is ok with that. Haven't been struck by lighting yet. I couldn't be beyond redemption anymore than you. God will judge me, and whatever he decides is fair.
You realize nothing. Without Make Believe Buddy, we are responsible for our own actions and have to live with the consequences of our mistakes. In general, I think atheists are far more moral than Christians because we actually have to think about right and wrong - we don't have the free pass you have to just shrug and say "I'm not perfect".
Arghh. I addressed the free pass issue with Mark. No point in repeating it.
I have never accused an atheist of being immoral. I have addressed this issue too.
I suppose it would be easier to start a thread like you did, post my stand and let the other side come in, en masse, to attack me; but I'll be honest with you, I just don't have your stamina.
I love you. I means this sincerely, but you guys have really been difficult to be nice with this morning. I need to get some work done. I hope you have a nice day.
When you walk by a beggar on the street, you can think "Let God care for him". When you are tempted to cheat someone, you can think "God's mercy is infinite; He will forgive my weakness and if any injustice is done to this other person, He will fix that, here or in Heaven"
We, on the other hand, have to live with our own conscience. We have to think how our actions affect other people, and people not yet born. We have to take responsibility.
You do not. Your fantasies give you a free pass to shrug your shoulders and say "Oh, well. Let God sort it out.".
We are moral beings. You don't have to be.
Yes, so close to perfection, yet so far away.
Like all Christians, if there was injustice done, Dear Teresa expected Make Believe Buddy to fix it.
"Cheat 'em all and let God sort it out!"
Christian words to live by.
It is absolutely impossible to keep up with all of the posts from the atheists today. Sheesh. If that site for real?
Yes it is. Are you offended again because someone dares to point out flaws in one of your Christian heroines?
"Cheat 'em all and let god sort it out". Words to live by.
Not only is the site for real, so are the scandals that have followed Mother Teresa around, that she herself was instrumental in creating. She did not turn out to be the saint many believe.
I'm wondering if you've been noticing that every time you bring something up religious in which you have a belief gets chipped away little by little as something you really had no idea was not what you thought you believed.
Hey, so nice to see you. I thought you were mad at me. Anyhoo, to the subject: this is what I like about you. You bring up points well worth thinking about. I haven't thought about that one much: yet. I will.
Will you dismiss it out of hand like the rest and continue believing as you do?
What, pray tell, have I dismissed out of hand? You have proven nothing that I didn't admit was true. Just because there are things you can't produce a valid argument for are not my fault.
What haven't we produced a valid argument for?
You have no rational reason to pursue this religious nonsense. Yet you do.
Again, I say. Love your posts. You seriously don't get it.
And that's how you respond when you realize you have no answer.
We "get it".
Pcunix, the question at the forefront of my mind has been; why does this offend you? I truly don't care what you put your faith in. I am unbadgerable on the concept of my faith. You don't see me running around trying to make the world agree with me.
I simply find your distaste amusing. Call me crazy.
You have admitted that many aspects of your faith are illogical and are plainly false.
We've simply asked you to explain what rock you are still clinging to.
We suspect that it's only magic you have left.
Shows how little you know. But, I'm sure you'll have a blind spot with that one, as wroth more important things.
Why the interest in saving my poor little brain? Surely there are more serious things for you to ponder.Although, I have to say, it is flattering for you to be so concerned about me.
Because you incessantly claim that you have reason to believe.
You do not.
Then tell us what it is. We keep asking, you keep evading.
I know why: you have nothing left but magic. You NEED to believe, so you believe. No rational reason, in fact you know it is all baloney - you have effectively admitted that.
But still you proclaim your faith. Why?
I have never evaded this question pcunix. It is a personal thing and therefore cannot be argued. You cannot know what I have experienced. I do not seek to change your opinion. If I did, I might really really try to figure out a way to share it.
For me, it is a trump card that you can never remove from my memory. Sorry.
So you lied when you implied that you have rational reasons to believe.
You have nothing but a deep psychological need. Which one is it? Fear of punishment? Desire for justice? Fear of death? Fear of being responsible for your own decisions?
It's one or more of those. It always is.
Always one of those? Really? See, I've pondered the reason why something as insignificant as I am would warrant attention; but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall into the categories you've mentioned.
I think PCUnix is wrong in this case. Deriving a measure of personal power without any skills, knowledge or abilities seems to be popular. Tell us wot god sez.
Oh, power by association. Good point, Mark.
Though I think that still falls under fear of being responsible.
Ok, you definitely lost me with that barb. But it does bring up a question I've had for a while. Aren't you afraid typing so silly will get away from you one day? I mean, have you ever sent an email or text and accidentally typed like that? If so, I can't imagine your embarassment
Anyway aren't you the ex priest? I would assume you'd be able to answer that question yourself.
To relieve your mind though, I don't have conversations with God. You can rest easy tonight.
He's implying that you are a god-groupie. That you think you become more important by association.
Much like the fools who congratulate themselves when "their" sports team wins. Power by association.
Actually, I agree with your analogy, but it shows you don't know me. Christians don't like my opinions. Some idiot at work wanted to start a bible study group at lunch and he specifically did not invite me. Seems my ideas on everyone is on a level playing field in God's eyes is heretical. Which was for the best, I like going out for lunch.
What? Not sure I follow that logic. How am I a groupie if I always alienate the group? I haven't had a conversation with a practicing Christian in years. I only talked to him once because he asked for a ride home. You assume to much. Again, you do not know me.
A god-groupie. You follow your fantasy, not the group that shares your delusions.
oh. If that's what you want to call it, ok. What are you? A pcunix groupie? I like my name better.
I'm not a groupie for anything. I have no heroes, imaginary or otherwise. I am confident in and of myself.
Sound to me like you're your hero. At least from your posts.
Aww, you meek little Christians always get upset by smart, confident people. It really bothers you, I know.
Did you know that it is ok for you to be smart and confident? Sky Daddy isn't real, so it is perfectly fine.
Oh, but it does. I know more about you than you know about yourself.
Ooh, that's spooky pcunix. I've never met a psychic, do tell.
I'm not psychic. It's just that the underpinnings of religious faith are quite obvious. In one word, fear. Fear of punishment, fear of responsibility, fear of dying, fear of inadequacy. That's most of it. The details are far more complex, of course.
Actually, the One you refer to has never given me cause for fear. You forget, I don't believe in hell, pretty sure we're safe from lightening bolts; is there something to fear I'm not aware of?
oh. I just saw this. Interesting. You have a point, but I don't think that is any different from my conscience. You do believe you have a conscience don't you? I realize we disagree on courtesy and etiquette, but I'm sure there has to be something you do occasionally that you feel bad about.
We have already discussed that. Is your memory failing you again?
I assert that atheists are more moral than Christians. Do you remember that? Do you understand how conscience is what drives morality for atheists?
Pcunix I have a lot of conversations with a lot of atheists. I realize you are your own idea of god, but I haven't memorized the Bible, so I don't feel compelled to memorize anyone's posts.
So, we both feel tied to conduct ourselves in line with what our conscience tells us is right. This sounds like an agreement to me. I am sure you will read some problem into it.
No. You questioned if I have a conscience, I'm simply assuring you that I do.
And it is dang inconvenient at times!
PC has a valid point on this one...Atheists are typically of a higher moral character than most so called "christians". Not that I am picking...but one tends to lead a "cleaner" life when one doesn't have a "god" to blame things on...when you have to "man" up to your own faults and accept responsiblility for them...well...you get the idea....
You are resorting to telling peopel you are more capable of understanding things than they are - again. Probably past your bedtime.
Little wonder your beliefs cause so many wars.
I have been ignoring his obvious attempts at asserting mental superiority. There's no point: other people will judge intelligence for themselves. The theists, of course, will judge by common belief.
Mental superiority? (that's a heck of a word to swype. Can't believe I didn't have to type it) Surely, you jest. I'm having fun here. I haven't pulled any big words out of my hat, given no backup to my opinions; nor have I attempted to insinuate anyone was dense.
If you see this as an attempt at being mentally superior we're in trouble. I'm trying to swype in a general conversational tone.
Although, after reflection: thanks for the complement.
K. to recap my position on this. Yes.. I do consider myself better at determining what is right for me, than anyone else is. I believe you're bright enough to do the same for yourself.
What was your other point? Oh yes, war. I believe we have gone over this too. I think the tally historically is, using your rational;
God: 32 million
Atheistic regimes: 170 million
Not sure why we are in disagreement as to which is the more deadly philosophy.
I am curious as to how you came up with your numbers for the death tolls?
Atheists don't believe in any form of god whatsoever...I'll have to look into how many of them started and led a war...I'll be honest...Either I missed something or we(the forum posters) are looking things WAY different...I'll have to agree with Mark on this one...Unless I am missing something..."god" has been used for justifing more deaths, than anything else I know of...But of course I could be wrong...I am going to research it...
Actually, the God tally comes from their posts. High end numbers.
The atheist tally comes from high end estimates of the deaths under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and WW II. I know they say Hitler was not atheist, but a pagan; but I still throw him in the godless category.
A related question: do they ever notice how little is left?
You mean how does he redefine the word. That is their favorite thing, as we well know.
Of course - that is why I asked. I think she was just doing the usual thing they do. Demanding respect for her religious beliefs. Odd how the only people that do that tend to have irrational beliefs.
On the one hand - this one wants respect and at the same time thinks the only reason I don't believe is because I am incapable of understanding the concept.
You never have explained how you define it. My guess is that you want me to say that your belief system isn't ludicrous, illogical and self-contradictory. That won't happen either.
I didn't suggest you link to anything. I said if you WANTED to link out, your author score needs to be at or above 75 to not have those be tagged "nofollow".
You probably have no idea what I'm talking about - too busy talking to Make Believe Buddy, right?
If my neighbor's house was on fire when he was sleeping in his bed, then the loving thing to do would be to tell him that he needs to get out and not to let him sleep. God tells us that we are sinners in need of a savior. The loving thing to do is to tell people about it. Once again, we don't beat people over the head, but we can't sugar coat the truth.
The two greatest commandments are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself. Wanting someone to have an eternal relationship with God is loving someone as yourself. I wouldn't want to be separated from God for eternity and I shouldn't want my neighbor to be either.
And that is why we dislike you so much. Keep your fantasy fires to yourself.
How can you dislike me when you don't even know me? Do you dislike everyone you disagree with? Your opinion is noted but
I choose to believe a risen Savior and will politely decline your loving invitation.
Yes, take no responsibility for your actions or your words and shift it to an invisible friend. Then, you can do and say whatever you want and never have to worry about any consequences. Hurray!
If you take the bible seriously it isn't we who turned against God it was God who turned against us. Read Genesis. First God keeps man ignorant of good and evil, but expects man to know right to obey God? Then God kicks man out of Eden and deprives him of immortality for a mistake every child makes, not listening to its parents. Then God forces us to speak different languages to inhibit what man can accomplish again. Fortunately man did again discover a universal language in science and it, will as God says, allow us to do anything.
Very well said. Please accept my thanks for making this point so clearly and kindly. I agree completely. Would love for you to read my most recent hub about Christians who turn people away from Jesus. Please feel free to comment as well. I'm very open to the feedback. God bless you!
Read it. Loved it. Wish everyone would take the time to visit your hub and read it.
just_curious, I didn't even realize this was YOUR post! Again, thanks for reading. You and I are certainly of the same spirit. So, again, thanks for reading AND thanks for sharing!
Good reason why the world is going to the crapper. People of the same spirit, but failing to be of the alike minds.
Don't mind cagsil. Stay around long enough and you'll see he's negative about everything.
If negativity is bliss for you, that's grand.
I was trying to play down to the level of the reply. Sue me.
Play down my level of reply? First come up to my level of understanding and clarity, then maybe you might actually see the light of day, never mind, being lost in the dark.
No wonder why Christians and the alike cannot ever see anything in reality.
This one likes to pretend we aren't all that bright, Cags. He drops little hints about that frequently.
That's okay. If a rational thought went through a Christian's mind, it most likely would scare them.
It definitely does. You could see that in that long, long thread I started.
Hello pcunix. I'm surprised at you. That was very unkind. You seem too nice to say something like that.
I am simply stating the truth. Rational discussion about irrational belief does scare you.
It is understandable: if you actually did think rationally about religion, you'd drop it instantly. But you avoid it, side step it, ridicule it and run like rabbits if you are cornered by logic (as you were).
Pcunix. Belief or non belief is a choice. Nothing irrational in that. What I find odd is, my reaction to your non belief is along the lines of; whoopty doodle. Who cares. Your reaction appears to be; oh my gosh, oh my gosh, how wil I correct this horrible wrong.
What do you care? Why is this such a momentous issue to you?
I think I was wrong when I said you posted honestly. As I recall, you had a post where you said your only goal was to protect the atheists, and help people on the fence understand they weren't alone. Seemed like a noble goal. But what I see, and this is from the incessant yacking, are posts desperately trying to belittle others into conversion.
Live and let live. How is this a bad philosophy?
If you truly want the world to be atheists, you need another plan. Try conversations that don't include words that don't fit the description of the problem.
I don't care if you want to live in fantasy. But I will never stop reminding you that you are irrational.
And I wil never stop reminding you that this is not a schoolyard where bullying accomplishes anything.
Actions are either rational or irrational. You formed a belief in a god. That action is irrational, only supposedly rationalized by you for whatever reasons. It doesn't make the action any more rational, because you rationalized it.
The action is still irrational.
You feel bullied?
Because I point out your irrational belief in creatures that cannot logically exist?
That is bullying?
It is the way you go about the disent. Heck, at least your buddy beelzedad had a rational argument, apparently he decided it wasn't a good one when he found out I wasn't gay.
Still trying to wrap head around that one. But, I'm sure there's an interesting angle there.
I can't make you see my point. I realize that. At least I tried. If you feel you aren't bullying, that's really ask that matters.
Well, I've always thought the same of you.
A rational discussion isn't something you've experienced, no wonder why you would attempt(miserably) at insulting someone. Then again, I realize you're doing your best to be civil, which is also something else I'm sure you're having a tough time with.
Oh, if only we could..
Just teasing. I dislike lawyers much more than the most fundy Christians.
I agree, telling someone that they are going to hell is something only God should do. Like WOC stated, Gods word tells us how to avoid hell.
That may be true, but don't you think maybe the log in our eye might be in the way? Of all the things to share from the scriptures why in the world would someone choose this to throw out at others? And do you believe that anyone knows where anyone is going? It is perceived as an insult. And I don't know that Christ ever insulted anyone except for the religious leaders.
I really don't know why someone would share that. I don't ever bring it up myself. I've honestly never seen it brought up here in the forums either, so I don't really know where it's coming from. I don't believe anyone knows where anyone else is going. I believe only God knows, but I also believe faith in Jesus is the only way to God's kingdom.
I don't know.I haven't been here long. I've seen it a couple of times, and the last atheist I talked to seemed to have dealt with it a lot. It just bothered me to be attacked, but I could certainly understand how the word Christian has negative connotations, if that is what they have been exposed to.
Sorry. I know that sounded like I thought you right it was ok to say it. I see you are saying it is on the scriptures. I just hour you leave that conclusion for others to come to on their own.
eddigity, There is a thread titled " Are Jesus deliberately lying about Jesus." I simply posted what the word of God says about avoiding hell with the scriptures. This was stated in a timely manner, so it was not thrown out there in a disrespectful way. Two atheists were attacking a christian faith on the forum, and the discussion lead to a warning about hell. I was not demonstrating evil to evil as I have been accused of in this forum. I will move along now before anymore darts are aimed at me. God bless you!
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Perhaps. Is that the point you were making in your previous post?
The point I was making was encouragement for WOC after what she wrote.
She was upset by something that, in my inability to express myself, I had done. I do hope she will find it within her heart to forgive me. But I don't think anything wicked is here. What is your opinion on the forum topic, Sir dent. Do you think there is a problem? If so, do you see a way to address it?
The problem is the flesh really. We should turn the other cheek and many times we do, but not all the time. Sometimes the flesh wants to fight it out.
It is a spiritual problem and none of us have perfected opur spiritual walk yet.
I would also like to add, writing about hell offends people, but at the same time, mentioning the name of Jesus offends them as well. If it is the offensivenss of it that bothers them, they need to thicken their skin or get on the right track.
I agree, that our faith does make for spirited debate, and there are some forums I find too offensive to continue to read. But, certainly we can restrain ourselves from this. I am in agreement with the complaints that the statement implying that the non believer is in jeopardy of eternal damnation is threatening. If it is used when someone is proselytizing it is not a way to win a convert. If it is used to support another believer it is as unkind as some of the attacks made on the Christian.
So, when a believer threatens me with hell and eternal damnation, I should just take it on the chin?
Doesn't matter to me how you take it.
Can I or anyone else put you in hell?
Should I warn a person of only good things that can or might happen?
I am not sure anyone has actually threatened you with hell anyway. If someone did, post a link to their comment. Let everyone read it.
No, but that doesn't stop the threats.
That's up to you, but you don't have the right to threaten people with hell. The best thing would be for believers to just keep it to themselves and say nothing at all.
So if I know there is a bridge out on a blind curve with cars traveling at a high rate of speed, I should just allow them to go their way without trying to warn them?
The Bible is full of warnings about different things and the consequences of doing those things. You can either receive it or reject it.
What does that have to do with threatening eternal damnation? It isn't even remotely related.
So is Aesop's Fables.
One of the things most caring and loving parents do, sometimes in error and to great extremes, is to warn our children of the woes and the dangers of the world that we live in. Being young and naive when we warn them we think we are protecting them from the experiences we do not wish them to experience nor would we wish another to experience. In our love we think we are doing what is beneficial to them. Do not's.. always tend to motivate one to want...to do. More often than not they do not heed the warnings and do any way, if only once. Perhaps it is for the experience and perhaps it is because someone said you couldn't. There reasons differ. Nevertheless experience is a far greater teacher than any I know.
I don't think it has anything to do with the overall message but in which manner it is delivered that can make all the difference.
There are many who share the wisdom of the bible using warnings or fear. That is their approach if they so choose. There are many others who use different approaches and vary from person to person. Fear and warnings work only for those who have fear already within. Those who are fearless will not subscribe to a philosophy that advocates this kind of message.
So, are you saying that you don't care one way or another how others take the threats of believers?
My bad. Bad choice of words. I should have said it makes no difference in what I believe or don't believe. Nothing you can do will change me from what God has created in me to be.
SirDent, You are right. Do you agree that turning the other cheek means to forgive, and not lash out at someone with revenge also? Your last statement hit the nail on the mark.
Turning the other cheek shows your confidence in God. If we are slapped again, then God will take care of it. If we are not slapped again, then God has already taken care of it.
It is funny in a way. We think about Stephen who wass toned to death for preaching Jesus. His brothers and sisters looked on as he was killed. In this day we live, we want to fight and stop all persecution before it even starts.
Jesus said, "If the world hates you, know that it hated me first." He also said we will be thrown in prison and persecuted for His name's sake. How are we persecuted if we stop it before it starts?
SirDent, Interesting. That's what Jesus said.
One thing I failed to mention. Sometimes when someone slaps us, we deserve it and it ie due to chastisement of the Lord. Paul wrote about this (paraphrased). If you deserve to be slapped, take it with humility. If you are slapped but not deserving of it, God will take care of it.
Do you see that type of behavior as standing up for your faith? I see hatred as dragging it down with you, and something that saddens people who see a different message. The threat of hell cannot be what brought you to believe. Why would it affect anyone in a positive way?
Can you be more specific in what you are asking about? I gave three different scenarios in my previous comment.
You referenced a statement about the world hating you, but hated Christ first. About persecution. This appears to me (please correct me if I am wrong) justifying the exact behavior I don't understand. I don't believe you are persecuted in the name of Christ. I don't think a nonbeliever knows Him well enough, or cares enough, to make that judgement. If I misunderstood, please correct me.
In response to your last statement, I couldn't disagree more. you live in a country where you are allowed to worship, or not, as you wish. As is everyone else. Anyway, please accept my apologies for allowing this to go as long as it has. I respect your right to your opinion.
Have you not noticed the last few decades of history? The rights of Christians are not what they used to be. Ia m sure that in the near future even more rights will be taken away.
As far as agreeing with me, it really makes no difference. One thing I know for sure, you cannot disagree with God and be right.
Woc, please accept my apologies if you got the impression that I was referring toyou in any way when I started this forum. You are one of the voices I respect on these pages. I say we, simply in that if we are christians, then we must accept some responsibility in the actions of those who use the same name. We includes me. I simply think there are times when someone who lays the claim of being christian is allowed leeway to say things they have no right to say. We have an obligation to speak out.
just_curious, I got the impression in your prior statement to me. "Oh, and so you know, you were one of the god christians I was referring to." As christians, we are demonstrating love when we share what the scriptures in the bible say about avoiding hell. Do you think we should only share all other scriptures, and avoid the scriptures in the bible containing to hell?
I do not personally see the value of a warning such as that to an unbeliever. But then, I think the threat of hell is way over rated. It is perceived as a slap in the face and we all have to know this. So instead of what a good Christian might perceive as a gentle warning, what they are doing is unkind and beneath them. In my opinion.
now that was well said. Because christians dont "share" scriptures on hell, they warn with them.
just_curious, There is always value of God's word, warning people of how to excape hell. The scriptures in the bible warns on its own. All I have to do is share them when needed. God's written word does not threaten people. Well, I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but we can agree to disagree. Sorry if my response bother you.
Your response does not bother me in any way. I respect you enough from what I have seen of your posts that you have come to this decision through thought and you do not lash out with it. that is the best way I can think of to say those things, if one feels the need.
There are far more useful ways to share ones own truth. Attempting to warn and instill fear in another based on ones own truth never seems to generate the desired effect. So is there any true value in that approach?
Always sharing ones own truth with love is a far more useful approach.
Yes, your bible does threaten. And, you have no right to share those threats. Keep them to yourself, thank you very much.
But believers do have an obligation (in scripture) to tell the secular world what the bible teaches, all of it.
Equally the secular world has the right to not listen or ignore what the bible states.
However having told the world the scriptures concerning them, there is no need or instruction to continue informing them, effectively once is enough and following that we can 'dust our sandels' and move on to others who may not be aware yet.
In today's communication rich world, there must be very few people alive who have not heard the 'gospel' ('good news') of Christ (which is also a predictive text in itself!) - and I agree that there is no more point in believers telling non believers who have already been made aware, what the bible states about their condition.
Hell is a subject that has many connotations to people, believers or not, and one can go from a literal-minded hell fire and brimstone preacher to a full universal salvation believer in a matter of months, I have a friend who did just that, once he studied the levels of meaning in aionion.... if you have not done this, well you are not fully informed.
Intrinsically hell, factual or fictional is of no regard for a believer, for Christ has spared them that whole concept when they came to faith.
If a believer came to faith to escape hell, I would caution them to think more deeply about their salvation.....scripture makes no reference to escaping being a valid reason to come to Christ, rather the realisation that Christ was sent to save us from the world, not hell.
Christ is not simply a parachute to save you in extremis, Christ is a saviour who allows us to move in this temporal plane without being subjected to the enemies control of the same, because He and He alone defeated ALL the power of the enemy, and those who have believed in Him have the authority to claim that victory over the enemy in the name of Christ, to whome they belong.
In reality it matters not whether hell is just a creation of the early Catholic church designed to instil fear and control over the populace, or is a reality that will burn for eternity, or is a figurative place of separation from God, or indeed whatever else you think it to be, for IF you have a relationship with Christ, if He KNOWS you, then you will never experience whatever hell is, and if you do not, then as believers we will have no knowledge of whatever you are experiencing:
God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither shall there be anguish (sorrow and mourning) nor grief nor pain any more, for the old conditions and the former order of things have passed away.
If believers have a scriptural obligation to tell the world that is all good and well. What is it they are telling though if the understandings of the scriptures are very limited at best. There are infinite levels of understanding scripture. If they are taught surface level understandings and not the depths then surface understandings will be taught universally. Who determines which believers are to tell the world.
To clarify, preaching the 'good news' includes preaching why it's good news in the first place.
Christ would have never needed to offer His life as a sacrifice for humanity, if humanity had nothing to be saved from.
It stands to reason that if we need to be saved, there MUST be something to be saved from.
All I am saying is that there is no need to reiterate incessantly to folk who reject Christ, what they are actually accepting by default, once they have been told, they either get convicted of their sin and repent, coming to Christ in belief, or they reject, and carry on in their error, eventually receiving their just fate as God dictates.
Either way, once we have told folk what we know to tell them, it's their problem not ours, so just leave them be to either come to faith or not.
If Christ died for our sins, why does it still exist? Does it not make sense to you then that this interpretation of why he died is not fully understood in its entirety?
We are saved from what? Hell? Sin? If it is hell, hell and damnation is also an interpretation of how someone perceived the message of Christ to mean.
Nothing wrong with spreading the good news or the messages that are useful to any one who will listen however I question whether it is useful to share messages that are not fully understood. Anything to do with the afterlife is merely ideas of what might occur. These messages are not so useful in my opinion.
John 14 1:3
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
Luke 13:22-24 (Amplified Bible)
And someone asked Him, Lord, will only a few be saved (rescued, delivered from the penalties of the last judgment, and made partakers of the salvation by Christ)? And He said to them,
Strive to enter by the narrow door [force yourselves through it], for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able.
Where do those who cannot get in go to?
These are questions we may not be able to answer fully, but we do need to consider and point out to those whom we inform of the good news.
Take a run through Matthew, seems to me Christ spoke plenty about what happens after death and about heaven.
Hi agua silver. Not to argue, I think you are one of the most insightful Christian posters on this site, but I sometimes wonder if some of his teachings are preresurrection. I know what the scriptures say, but to me the concept of hell is very difficult. A lifetime of torment for sins in a mortal lifetime seems difficult to justify. I get the impression you don't believe in the hell many believe.what do you see as the alternative for the unsaved?
I have written previously and I think I even have hubbed about this, but in a nutshell, I recognise that God MUST provide a place for folk who truly do not wish to commune with Him, and that place must contain also those who by their actions are unable to commune with Him.... and that must be hell (note the small h)....in that any place where God is absent will not be a good place to be.
That place is provided by our own constructions. This is what footprints in the sand alludes to. Hell therefore is as a result of these self constructs.
If we are talking about "our own constructions" being the choices we make, which determines whether we spend eternity with God, or without Him, we can agree.
Cute conversation. It's interesting and entertaining when adults fantasize and try to rationalize their gods to the point of asserting what they will think and what they will do.
your last post is very insightful. I definitely need to look at your hub. Thanks for the clarification.
Oh there are places where God chooses not to be, and one of them would be the place in eternity, where people declare they do not wish Him to be.
God can be anywhere He wants to be, but where humanity dictate or legalise God out of society on earth, God allows them their iniquity, there are many examples of this on earth, one can suppose that God can create a space somewhere in the His creation where those who reject Him, or are disqualified from being in His presence, will abide for eternity.
Jesus spoke in parables mainly because what can be seen and felt in the invisible worlds is indescribable with the use of language we have. His parables makes sense when you have been to the 'place of the father'. Most have but when logic cannot explain it, it is disregarded. Jesus can only take one there by express permission and is dependent on ones realization of where Jesus dwells. This realization is sometimes called Christ consciousness as I understand it.
To fit through the narrow door points to the letting go of false beliefs that make one not fit. If one cannot fit the nature of who we are will eventually evoke experiences that will force us into letting go what is false and illusory.
Yes Jesus did talk a lot of heaven and the after life. Most of it symbolically to represent that which cannot be described.
Not true. Jesus commanded ONLY his eleven disciples to do so, who were supposed to delegate preachers as the only method of spreading the gospel. You and everyone else here do not have that right.
Of course, we've witnessed the body count throughout the past many centuries that resulted from that "obligation."
Matthew 28:18-20 (Amplified Bible, to make it easier for you)
Jesus approached and, breaking the silence, said to them, All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days (perpetually, uniformly, and on every occasion), to the [very] close and consummation of the age.
It's a kinda self replicating command, Christ gave it to the first disciples, they gave it to us, we pass it forward, that's why it keeps on growing stronger (trust and faith, not Churchianity)and presumably why you so vehemently try to stop it.
Your apology for trying to say I was lying is accepted.
Nope. Clearly, there is a poor understanding amongst Christians of what context those words were to be taken.
Beelzedad, I agree with you about the command to the apostles. I don't think the average Christian is called to preach the Word. I don't believe what I, and most everyone here is doing is that. Unless you believe that since we are posting to each other that, being written, is throwing out sermons to others who wander through the forums. If that is your contention, then I think you read way too much. Don't click on anything titled God, Jesus or prayer.
When you post an opinion in disagreement to one posted and the person responds with a rebuttal that is not preaching. It appears to me, what you are asking for is the right to post your opinion without getting a response. I don't know if that is a reasonable request.
How about sharing nothing at all, which would be most pleasant. That way, believers could learn a little bit about respecting others.
Hey, that may be part of the problem. How come you get to talk about what you want and everybody else has to talk about what you want? Sounds like a dictatorship to me. People should be able to talk about whatever suits them. You could try not joining in, just to rain on their parade.
That is right! just because Beelzedad don't like fig newtons, he goina wine unless we all eat chocholote chip, and he hasn't even proved that he likes them yet.
Beelzedad what do you like?
LOL. that's the way to bring our little rain cloud back.
Well, it would be nice if folks stopped comparing their irrational religious beliefs to reality as if they were one and the same.
Even in perfect world. No one is going to comprehend reality the same.
So, when I hold a banana in front of your face, you won't be able to comprehend that it is in fact a banana?
So If I ask you to define reality you would hold up a bananna?
Who said anything about talking about stuff? Are you saying that is the same as evangelizing Christianity and threatening people with eternal damnation?
No. threat's are bad. Thinking you aren't fine just the way you are is bad. But I don't see talking about your religion as a bad thing. If you come into a religious forum and join in, that is your choice. Maybe some people don't know you and think you're there because you're interested in the conversation. I'm pretty sure I've never gone into a forum about the joys of atheism and gushed about my faith. I would not feel good about myself if I did that. I like to hear your thoughts even though they are opposed to mine, but sometimes you can be just a tiny bit difficult and I wish I had a tool to remove the grin from your emoticon. But, for the most part, not.
Shouldn't Atheists be held to the same standard also?
I think that's part of the problem. Christians try to hold themselves to a higher standard and the atheists get to say whatever they want. when a Christian snaps, their words are so far removed from the spirit they had been talking previously, it comes off a lot harsher than someone who had been somewhat snide from the start.
I think you're simply being argumentative with that post, But in case you really didn't understand; you too need to open your eyes and be fair. You attempt to formulate a logical argument against your oponent, and bait them along the way. An acceptable strategy. I don't know why anyone would threaten you with damnation. Some of the nay say posts I've seen are hateful to the extent of being mentally off balance and continue on as if the only point is to badger. There is a higher standard than that.
Oh, that last post was my bad. I thought you were responding to something else. Never mind.
Which atheists are threatening you with eternal damnation?
None, but I was referring to "sharing nothing at all" and "learn a little bit about respecting others."
Beelzedad, I encourage you to not enter the forums where believers are discussing their faith, then you won't have to view what have been shared. It's uncilvilized for an adult to join in to attack people because they believe.
WOC, I haven't actually seen that thread, but if you didn't attack someone then I don't see a problem. Sometimes Atheists say mean things out of hatred in the heart toward Christianity. I've never seen you act mean toward anyone, so they might have just interpreted what you wrote the wrong way.
ediggity, I made an error. The title: Are Christians deliberately lying about Jesus. No, I didn't attack anyone. Some of the Atheists in the forums deliberately interpret what Christians say the wrong way. I shared the biblical truth with scriptures in that particular forum, and it was shared with love. This forum is up and running now. You may scroll below Dian's replies to see what I wrote if you prefer.
Hi WOC. I know it is somewhat impolite to reply when you were talking to someone else. I just want you to know I didn't post this forum due to anything I may have interpreted from anything you ever said. I don't go into forums with more than about 50 posts unless I have to. I have a hard time pushing this little droid through them. I don't know what was said, but you always speak with wisdom and compassion. Our disagreement on a point is, I'm sure, more my problem with sharing the scriptures than any you might feel.
Since you brought this up an idea or suggestion would be to setup a study ground here or somewhere else and do some biblr studies like in Sunday school to help others that need it a better clarification to the teachings of Jesus.
Sounds like a plan, but I was just venting. I'm not part of any congregation. It would be a study group of one and I get boring very quickly.
Is that possible on this site? sounds interesting.
Sure why not? You can start a Bible Study Thread. I usually read Our Daily Bread, which focuses on a new piece of scripture each day.
Keep in mind that The bible says"other"cheek.It does not specify"Which"other cheek[we have four you know].Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the term"Sometimes you just got to show your ass to bad people".
so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell
Blue skies from pain
A green field from a cold rail
A smile threw a veil
Do you think you can tell? Pink Floyd
"For who is the wiser man?He who thinks he knows but does not know.Or I who knows that he does not know" Socrates
Hi. Glad you put your two cents worth in. love the quotes from pink floyd and socrates. Can you clarify for me though? I'm kind of on the fringe of mainstream Christian philosophy. Are you saying you think it's ok for Christians to throw that at someone?
I'm saying the appropriate response in any given situation is the kindest most effective response even if it requires violence.How else can we incorporate christian wars of necessity into Christianity.I'm referring here to Christs saying he comes with a Sword".Though that is meant in a spiritual sense it is also manifest in the physical world.Militancy is Never productive...Violent reaction dose have a place in Christianity however and those who disagree need to forfeit the relative security in terms of our spiritual rights and benefits...cause their Not getting the whole picture.In closing I must say...A true warrior does everything in his power to avoid conflict and hates the violence he must inflict.However,when it's required he Will bring down the Lightening.
Dean....don't let my screen name throw you
Ok. So you think that right to violence extends to verbiage used in a discussion that has turned fractious? I really am trying to get a handle on this, so please indulge my questions.
"Government is like a great noble stead that must be spurred on due to it's immensity.I am the Nat that is always disturbing here and there" Socrates
This quote should be applied to all areas of human endeavor...including religion...it is effective in terms of opening minds so that greater understanding may be grasped.
Expression has nothing to do with content.It is simply the vessel that caries it.Why do you say"right to violence"?There is no right to violence.Violence is appropriate Only when necessary.Verbiage alone is not sufficient.You are opening an area that has to due with philosophical avenues that flow and change so trying to nail down those precepts is not going to happen in a short forum exchange.Please don't interpret what I say as being contentious.I cannot spend as much time as I'd like here[you'll please notice I very rarely visit the forums].I'm not a writer,philosopher,or intellectual giant.I pose only thoughts just as others do.Take what resonates and leave the rest.I wrote a hub titled"I'm a happy guy"that I believe may give a better understanding of another path experienced by some.One of the comments began with"Though violence is not the answer,it is effective..."I'd like to invite you to take a moment and read it.This is not promotional as I'm not here to earn money like most of my respected fellow hubbers.Besides,what would I buy with all that money?One cannot purchase the holy grail of"Balance".One can only seek it internally.Please forgive the length of this post"They don't let us out much" Independence day.lol
I think many folk have a desire to see hell populated, despite what scripture states about love and not being judgemental, and for some it seems they view that those who reject God NEED punishment.
I guess we all are at different stages of understanding about how God loves humanity.
When we find a person claiming Christ, but threatening Hell, we all need to counsel them, for we are meant to always either be blessed by those we meet or be blessing those we meet, not cursing folk who we disagree with.
You are 100% right. That was the point I was so poorly trying to make. most evey person that has posted here have seemed to be that considerate type, from their posts in other forums. I just wonder if it isn't appropriate for people like that to stop tip toeing around their more sensitive fellow Christians and point that out. I think it is hard to step up in a forum where that person is suffering what we might perceive as attacks, but they reflect very poorly on the faith by doing that. in my opinion. I could be wrong. Maybe my opinion is the one that doesn't line up with Christianity, but I certainly hope not.
I don't turn any cheek, if someone slaps me, I slap them back.
I'm hoping you don't mean physically,if you do...well I'm working on that.If you slap me,it'll be returned.
Now stating for my faith and beliefs I'm going to hell,yeah I turn the other cheek the lower one and walk away.
I may even tell "Bless your heart" and keep it moving.
I so don't know what you're talking about, but since I'm more of an eye for an eye than a turn the other cheek kinda gal, yeah, I mean it in every possible way, figuratively, literally, and physically.
Ok you follow the old ways. That's cool. so, since hell isn't a big idea in the Old Testament, you wouldn't use the threat of that in an argument. you've got a more conventional arsenal.
Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Jesus Himself spoke of hell being a real place. How can a person say they follow Jesus and disregard some of the things He said?
Sir dent, I have no intent to cross scriptural swords with you. I think you have your right to your opinion. I feel I've gotten a good idea of what that is. I just want to say I agree with the Jewish mystics who claim the Bible to be a level of creation. It is infinite in it's variety of thought. You can find whatever you want. I simply fear that a person who embraces God because of the bad they see in the scriptures is in need of salvation more than one who denies Him for the same reasons. I wish you luck on your path.
The same Jewish mystics who had Christ crucified? You do know that the priesthood was full of mystics?
I wonder if they had a golden calf in their temple at the time. That's another thread altogether.
What I mean is,I have a problem with someone putting their hands on me.It would be an automatic reaction to strike back. I'm really working on that.
Now words don't bother me,you could probably say some really awful stuff to me in my face,as long as you don't spit in my face or touch me,I would really just laugh.
Because I know what's in my heart,my soul,my faith and I know me.I also know that you have a right to believe whatever your faith is,and I respect that.But if you want to berate me,chestise me,dog me because of my faith,what I believe,or what I am.
To me this person just doesn't know,doing these things to me all while trying to get me to see their vision/religion as the one,doesn't have enough faith or belief in their religion to let it come naturally.
@I'm more of and eye for an eye type maybe alittle worse but God's been working with me.
I believe that God would not tell someone where to go but would embrace that person. The bible says, "You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:43-44). If we would all do this the world would a more peaceful place to live in. There would be less violence and more compassion for others.
Great point, attacking someone verbally, that you really don't even know, as a person don't really interact, with that is striving to be Godly, yea that something to think about. Seeking a problem, that shouldn't be a factor for you. I do believe God would question that and the motives.
Thank you! If we surround ourselves with negativity we become negative but if we seek to encourage, inspire, and teach others we can make a difference.
Well, turning the wrong cheek can really bite you in the arse.
I guess there are two types of Christians, the ones who go with the big picture 'turn the other cheek' philosophy and the ones who get caught up in all the literal interpretations of each and every passage in the bible. Aside from the sins listed, there is a lot of judgment in there. Eating shellfish is prohibited, men shouldn't cut their hair etc.
How do we pick and choose? Well many bible quotes have been taken out of context and used to oppress others. The New Testament likely wasn't intended to be a tool of judgment and oppression. I might be wrong but I prefer to think of it as a big metaphor for love, tolerance, and forgiveness. Using Christianity as an excuse to practice intolerance and judgment of others seems to be at odds with this basic message.
I like that. Love tolerance and forgiveness.
You have, in my opinion, the right philosophy. Thanks so much for taking the time to state it. I am pleased to see so many post who believe this way. I was hoping to draw in a few who didn't understand this, so perhaps we could hash it out with them, but they aren't posting. With luck they'll read the forum. I hope they pay particular attention to your post.
...i've no idea of what or where the discussion went...
....just swoopin' on by to say hi to AS!...Hi!...
Yes, we see this intolerance amongst Christians everywhere. Currently, one of the hot topics these days is the fact that Christians are causing so much grief to gay teens, they are committing suicide.
Brenda Durham wrote...
That's a load of hogwash.
- - - - -
It is their teenage peers who are terrorizing this group as well as any other group tht does not fit in with their prticular "Click"
Religion has little if anything at all to do with teenage bullies terrorizing defenseless people.
Those bullies don't care who they are picking on.
They are bullies plane and simple and will continue to be until they misjudge a victon that beats the crap out of them.
Unless that happens, they grow up to be adult bullies, and they are found in all walks of life.
Even here on Hub Pages.
While I would agree there are bullies, those particular good Christians are specifically targeting gays.
But, I do understand why you would defend them.
Yeah, it is so limiting to work within the confines of reality. It must be so much better to have imaginary beings who explain things to you.
And it is even easier to think that we know everything when we pretend that the world is as small as we would imagine it to be.
Wouldn't the earth be a wonderful place if we were all as smart as some of us think that we are.
Right, it's better to make stuff up, That is SO much better than science,
I have nothing against science, In fact i love it, all of it and not just the part that I already agree with.
There is nothing about science that proves my concepts wrong.
When I read something that contradicts my beliefs I adjust my beliefs accordingly.
But that's not true, Jerami. Science and very simple logic prove that your god cannot exist.
Simple logic is a good place to start.
I like to think of things in their most simple of form; This makes a good foundation. Then build upon that.
The foundation must conform to the structure that you are building. OR
That which we can build is limited to the foundation that we have chosen.
Anything else would not be logical.
That is exactly my point, Jerami: by very simple logic that any normally intelligent person can understand, your god is impossible. It cannot be anything but a natural product of the physics it exists within - assuming it exists at all, of course, which is far beyond unlikely.
You have seen the simple logic that proves this. You cannot refute it, why do you continue to believe nonsense?
All that I can think of is that my foundation must be different than yours; which allows me to build a different product than yours.
It is not up to me to say that my product is better than yours though it would be a natural tendency.
You are avoiding the logic, Jerami. I have given you simple logic that proves your god cannot exist. You try to avoid it by bleating about foundations.
We both exist from the same foundations: physics. Your god would need a supporting physics also. It is impossible for you to deny that, so you try to avoid it. It is what theists always do: avoidance, misdirection, nonsense babbling and all the rest.
Your god cannot exist. It's that simple, Jerami.
Based upon the scientific data found in a blueberry patch, strawberries can not exist.
Search and you will find whatever you are looking for.
Like my grandpa said, " Ya gotta want it first or ya ain't goina get it, unless it's something ya don't want like a flat tire or a V.D.
Ya gotta want it or you arn't going to get it.
You continue to avoid the argument.
But I expect that: you NEED to believe.
It is not I who is avoiding.
You do not hear that which you avoid hearing. Ya gotta want to hear or you won't.
Just to keep on track of the topic the phrase "Turn the other cheek" does not mean I let somebody beat the daylights out of me! It simply means that we should not give into insult! It is hard not to respond to somebody who is insulting you and your family! But, when we threaten physically we do need to defend ourselves. Like the brother said earlier Jesus did command His disciples to by swords. Not to attack, but to defend! The Lord does not want us to argue, and attack people on every little thing, but He does want us to defend ourselves from spiritual attack!
I agree. We do have the right to defend ourselves. I believe the Apostle Paul said every Christian should be ready and able to give an accounting of their faith. Or something to that effect.
Oh, yes, it is always so hard for me to remember that simple logic is an "attack" in the eyes of theists. You need your faith so desperately, like any addict with any drug, that anything that might wean you from it is, of course, an attack.
I know it is difficult for you to remember. That is why I try to be so patient. But please, do try harder.
Quite seriously, I worry about those of you who are so dependent upon your faith. You run some small risk of having it destroyed by frequenting forums where rational people can point out your folly.
There are moderated religious forums that do not allow dissent. I would suggest that those who are truly dependent upon faith hang out in those places. Your mental health is important.
Takes more than a few ugly words to shake my faith!
What doesn't kill me only makes me stronger!
You are too funny. Pot calling the kettle black on that one. Mental health. I can't stop laughing. I know your game. You're tired of treading water. I get that.But I'm pretty sure the only reason you continue to post within religious forums is because you are seeking answers.
Wish you luck, but as I said before, don't look to me for answers. They are personal and you can only find them for yourself.
Unlike you, I am not satisfied with fairy tales.
I've told you before why I post here: to help lonely and isolated atheists and for my amusement in making theists squirm. Your attempts to avoid reality at all costs do provide comic relief at times, but truly: I do worry about you. I have no desire to destroy someones faith and have them enter deep depression.
Hey.I get it. This is an open forum. I realize everyone can see and you're playing to the peanut gallery. I think we both know what's going on. I promise to keep your secret.
I make no secret of it: I enjoy watching theists dodge reality and I like to help isolated atheists who are surrounded by people they think are insane. There's no secret there.
But you probably have one. You want to convert, so that Sky Daddy will smile upon you and forgive your other sins. You fawn to an imaginary being and I can prove to you that it does not exist, cannot exist.
You keep avoiding that little unpleasantry, don't you?
Look, I cannot keep a secret for you if you don't stop talking. I'm telling you, it's more obvious than you might think. People can put two and two together. They are not stupid. Let's just stop it now, before it gets out of hand. Your secret is, so far, safe with me.
So typical of theists, isn't it?
It IS amusing watching you squirm. I particularly love your evasions and attempts at diversion (like this).
But where is your refutation? I had the impression that you were a self described "logical" theist - that you thought that reason cannot disprove your beliefs.
I HAVE disproved your god. You have yet to do anything about that other than try to squirm away from dealing with that reality (as you have here).
Ok.you're right in that I'm playing games. Its's just you're so much fun to play with you. It's just such a hoot to hear you say you've proven anything. Just because you use names like Sky Daddy and aren't immediately struck by lighting proves little more than you really aren't good at joking around. It does not disprove anything.
Furthermore, if such a thing were possible to prove it would probably have happened before now and been proven by someone more intelligent than you or me.
I simply find it entertaining that you claim you have done it. Sue me.
Statistically, there are very few people more intelligent than I. That's fact, whether you believe it or not (nor do I have any great respect for intelligence, but that's a different matter).
However, that's unimportant: the proof I offered does not require great intelligence, which is why I have said before that you can feel free to assume I have ordinary intelligence or even sub-standard if that pleases you.
I HAVE proved it. I cannot imagine why no one has offered such proof before - it's quite possible that they have and that I am simply unaware of it. It may even go back many years.
That doesn't particularly matter. What matters is that I have presented the proof and you are unable to refute it.
I have no idea of what proof you speak of, but I have noticed posts of people who have been longer than I that laugh at the claim. So I must consider it suspect. As to your level of intelligence. Whatever. I'm considered to have a high IQ also, but that has little do with common sense, nor is it a claim I will make again on any post outside of this response. I consider it gauche.
I would advise, for your own reputation, to reconsider making unsupportable claims.
Do you? I don't. It is no different than stating my height.
But as I said, intelligence has nothing to do with this because it seldom has much use anyway and definitely is not needed here.
The proof I speak of is here http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/65568?p … ost1451308 and I also have a hub that goes into more detail for those too lazy to think about it.
If it is unsupportable, then refute it. Have at it. You will not succeed.
By the way, laughing at something doesn't disprove it.
You can't disprove something that hasn't been proven. I thought you said you had a high IQ? Oh, that's right. That has nothing to do with common sense. Never mind.
I have disproved the possibility.
You can't weasel out of this that easily.
In fact, it has everything to do with common sense.
Does your god not need to reason, to think, to reach decisions? I don't insist that he must be any good at it, by the way, but it is only common sense that a god needs to reason, is it not?
oh my gosh. I give up. Do me a tremendous favor. Start a thread. Lay it all on the line and let's see how your theory, presented en masse, stands up to the light of day. Posting back and forth is just simply too disjointed.
I'm serious. I am curious.
It is not a theory. It is a logical proof. You don't refute a proof with opinion, you refute it with logic..
Of course you can't. If you want to see other people fail to refute it, go ahead. I'll be happy to participate but for me, it's quite enough to have forced you to see that you can't refute it.
Remember why I am here, Curious: to amuse myself and offer hope for other atheists. You have been QUITE amusing.
But you haven't refuted anything. Listen, I realize it's maybe akin to baring your soul, and I realize you have a picture of yourself as your avatar, so maybe it would be more personal. But I am serious. I do not know what you are talking about. Your posts have always seemed repetitive and empty to me.
I honestly would like to see a thread of this where we can talk about it and you can defend your theory. I swear to you I will be considerate and attentive.
OK, just followed your trail, first question:
Define 'a unity'?
A zero. A one. Not something that can be a zero or a one.
Hello pcunix. Man, I am so happy to find this discussion here. I know I said I would be courteous in the other forum, so here I can laugh.
What were you thinking? That is the flattest argument I have ever seen against the idea of God.
Having now delved into the atheist mind I feel that I am qualified to assist you. The first thing I would say is, please grow up. This type of pointlessness is vey inhibiting to intelligent debate.
Start small. Don't try to find God. Try to find your inner self. Once that has been done (and I have faith that you can do it) reach further.
That's not an argument. That's simply an explanation of terms.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that this confuses you. You've shown us that you never have understood any part of the discussion.
And then you ran away, and came back here to try another condescending swipe. Too bad you missed the target - as usual.
I am so sorry you feel that way. Truly I am. I am still attempting to understand why our differenceson this matter must be so contentious. I believe stubborness is st the heart of it.
I stubbornly believe I have a right to my opinion.
You stubbornly believe I don't.
Get over it. It is just opinions. Why would you have the need to always be right for everybody? It seems a little odd to me that someone would feel the need to try.
Again, it's not an opinion. I offered a proof. You said it had logical fallacies, but have been unable to point to any.
You change like the wind..
No pcunix.it does not have logical fallacies.you did a good job. I don't lie unless it is clear I'm joking around and I'm telling you that's the truth. I know you don't see my point and I'm so sorry. But the truth is, it doesn't come close to addressing the ultimate question.
What ultimate question is that?
Why don't you bring this to one place? Is it because you think you can sneak something by me here?
I don't understand your reply. Please explain. Sneak what by? Where?
Why don't you bring your "it doesn't come close to addressing the ultimate question" to the thread you asked me to create?
I was honestly trying to be nice. You are running around as hard as youcan trying to respond to everyone's questions. I don't have time right now, but if you want me to I will explain it when I get home this evening. I would prefer to put it here, at the end of this thread no one is reading anymore first. I'll repost it there if you want me to. It is entirely up to you. I promise I will do whatever you decide.
,Oh and if this is a joke to you, even if you bring the gang and you all make fun of me I won't care. I think this is something you should try to understand so I'm willng to try and explain it.
Do it any way you prefer. Odd that your faiith is so insecure that you fear other peoples comments.
I don't fear comments. I was honestly thinking of you. Ok.I'll post it on the other, it's really quite complimentary of you for the most part.
Oh, it's so thoughtful of you to still be pretending that you are able to refute me in any way.
Go ahead. You will only have to eat your own words again.
I hope I don't need to remind you how many you have eaten so far?
Not sure what you're referring to about eating words, but ok.I don't want to argue a point like that anyway. I think you still misunderstand my point. I have no desire to refute your claim that by the laws of physics there could be no gods. I have no problem with that statement. And I believe I have repeatedly said that. Your logic is flawless in your post.
Yes, you say that now. Earlier you said it had logical fallacies. Those are the words you had to eat.
You were so sure of that, weren't you?
But we never did find out why you continue to believe. It must be that "ultimate question".
I really need to warn you: that too will fail. What will you do then? Will it be magic you turn to? Or the "outside of time" bit that makes your god impotent and powerless? I can hardly wait to see what logical fallacy finally mires you for good.
you have the purest motives for atheism of anyone on this site. You honestly don't get belief, whereas many of the others come off mad at their idea of who Gods is. If you are going to have any luck, you have to adress the issue of what is the nature of the other you perceive could exist, within the laws of physics. No one wil take you seriously on this issue until you adress that. 92% of the world believes in something more, in one way our the other.
Until you can show some evidence that their minimum perceptions can be met, you are wasting time and breath. That is all I'm saying.
You seem to have forgotten why I do this. It is not to convert.
of course not, on some levels. But it is a conversion of some sort to them and to me. Without a firm understanding that our perceptions of whatever any of us believe is there, you're wasting breathe.
The problem you seem to have is you've got the zeal for the subject, but you don't understand the mindset of anyone you're talking to.
It's not really a mindset. You have an emotional need to believe - the "god shaped hole". I understand it perfectly.
well ok, I actually thought you were trying to be serious on yourthread. That's a joke? That's a pretty good one. You fooled me.
I never had any God shaped hole to fill, in fact I was a most reluctant defector and had been the happiest sinner you could ever meet.
I simply had my spiritual eyes opened one day, and found myself on the wrong side of a good place to be, and having done that looked for the way out of my wrong place.... so no God shaped hole, just a eternal happiness that I escaped the bad side and was rescued by Christ, who has ALL power and authority.
Maybe you should find a better way to amuse yourself, if young atheists (presumption on your part?) are in such dire danger from hearing what we say, all they need do is stay in the atheist forums....now where are they? hmmmm.
OH I know turn left after something and look for nothing.
Some folks just can't see or hear nuthing but them selves.
Edit .... Wuddent talking about Chu
Hey, I hope none of you think poorly of me for what I was trying to do. It's simply I thought there was an opening to make him think about opening his eyes, just so tiny bit.
It's not that they are in danger. And isn't necessarily young people either. It is those who are isolated in a world of theism. Those who wonder if there is no other sane person in the world.
LOL. You call atheism sanity? That's the funniest post I've read all night
No, you don't understand. Many atheists do initially feel that the theists surrounding them must be insane. It can be quite frightening, especially for young people.
In the sense of being irrational, yes, religious belief can be seen as "not sane", but we eventually realize that it is so mild as to be unimportant and that everybody, theist and atheist, exhibits irrational behavior.
ok, you must be attempting humor, because otherwise I'd think you were crazy. But, either way, that's pretty mild for you, so I'm smiling at your post. We may not be laughing at the same thing, but it is together; which I enjoy.
Hey, I need to apologize to you also. I would have done it in your thread, but I didn't see a reply button that far down. I didn't realize I was arguing with Mark in your site. I had promised to be courteous and attentive and I know that didn't fit the bill. Like I said, I just clicked on the email and didn't notice where it led me. Please accept my apologies.
Would we know what sanity was if we triped over it?
what does it look like?
what does it feel like?
what does it taste like?
what does it smell like?
what does it sound like?
OH Sh-t It don't!
It doesn't exist. OH Man .....
what am I goina do ?
Hopefully, someone will come along to explain exactly what that means. Makes no sense as it stands.
Those are the eyes that the brain has neurons firing. It is what a blind man uses when he has no physical sight. Physical sight however can prevent these neurons from firing sometimes.
Wow. That was an incredibly good answer. I'm going to have to do some research on that concept.
Wow! Talk about being misinformed and making stuff up. Aside from being hilarious, it's rather sad, Penny.
Again, begin with Biology 101 and go from there.
Listen, do what you want, but as long as you're coming from the angle you're coming from, it's falling on deaf ears. You either need to know what you appear to be fighting against or you might as well stop fighting it.
Why should I stop? It is great fun seeing people like you paint themselves into corners.
Remember, this is for my amusement and for the benefit of isolated atheists. I realize there is no hope for you: religion is an addiction and you undoubtedly need it to function. I would not even want you to be dissuaded.
By the way, the claim is not that the laws of physics preclude gods. You still don't understand any of it, do you?
Pcunix I think if you want to debate with this matters, you need to debate an "APOLOGIST". They can give much better answer than we could give. And their level of argument is the same as your level, I am sure of that.
I do my best to turn the other cheek.Thats not to be confused with being a pushover,nope quite the opposite.
Remaining quiet can be the greatest strength,and theres no challenge in being a smart mouth.
No ,takes more strength to shut ones mouth
Im not perfect ,Gods not finished with me yet
So - Jesus was lying? LOL Do not turn the other cheek - fight the good fight. No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
I was not raised or educated in a Religious system,although I do agree in part that Religion has been responsible for horrendous wars.
Mark,you have something in common with Jesus, he abhored Religion too!
And no Jesus wasnt lying ,when he advised his followers to turn the other cheek.
Are we perfect? Im not.
Quit splitting hairs or I will have to come up there an bash ya Mark
How is pointing out that people who claim to be Christians almost never act the way they tell others to behave, "splitting hairs." ?
Honestly - if all you Christians were Christ-like I very much doubt I would have anything bad to say about the religion. But - guess what?
Fighting for god? What a joke. If I was going to worship an Invisible Super Being I am pretty sure I would choose one that did not need me to fight for it.
I am not kidding. If I saw Christians actually turning the other cheek and loving their neighbor as they love themselves - what could I possibly say that was wrong with that?
Actions speak louder than words.
Show me you love me - don't just threaten me with eternal damnation and call me a fool if I don't choose to believe the palliative nonsense you believe - and call that love instead.
Which "butt" cheek is the proper "butt" cheek to turn to when necessary?
Either 'butt" cheek is acceptable to plant a size 12 boot upon.
Just my opinion. :
I feel your 'lumping together 'ALL Christians in one boat is about as helpful as saying ALL Atheists ,or ALL Catholics, or ALL Republicans etc etc etc...feel or act a certain way.
I know that is not the case,and Im sure you do too.
No,what is in common though is a believe ,faith ,ethos.
On that basis the subject, any subject should be debated.
Christians are so called because they follow ( or desire to) but they NOT Christ.
( If a rep from a large company screws up, does that mean the Company is wrong?)
No,not an excuse for bad bahaviour ,just the way human nature is.
I think the real deabte is ChristvSatan, not what Christians believe at all.
In the end we do not answer to one another ,or have to give an account to anyone else but God, but oh much more pleasant it is for people to dwell together in harmony.
Any hypocrisy is nauseating I agree. Mark you have good head knowledge regarding the Bible.Im sure you know how strongly God stood against that as well.
When you walk by a beggar on the street, you can think "Let God care for him". When you are tempted to cheat someone, you can think "God's mercy is infinite; He will forgive my weakness and if any injustice is done to this other person, He will fix that, here or in Heaven"
God does not say to behave in that manner ,in fact he says the opposite,of course you are correct in saying ,people could justify their actions ,but it still doesnt make it right in Gods eyes, now does it?
Forgiveness is real if genuine, if one wants to play with God ,thats on him in the end.
How do you know what god says? A while ago you were arguing that "turn the other cheek" does not mean "turn the other cheek".
How do you know what God says? or doesnt say ?
Aarghhh...nope ,you confuse my analogy or me with someone else perhaps?
No. You clearly tell us what god says.
The Bible says what God says....
Im not going to type the bible says...everyime I quote Gods word!!
Technically, The bible says what man supposedly says "God" says.
The only real truth is experience apart from human influenced exercises.
Meaning Creator dictating what to do v humans dictating what Creator thinks humans should do. Huge difference.
books are books.
Creator is not in a book...
No ,but His instructions ,commandments,definations are (in a book) called the Bible.
And my earlier reply was with regard to a previous post accusing me of speaking for God...anyway
How's ya week-end?
Ah - so when you tell me what god sed - you are not really telling me wot god sed - you are telling me wot u have translated wot the babble sez into words that mean you don't have to do wot god sed.
And then you stand and fight and argue that you did not say wot god sed.
That would be "turning the other cheek," I suppose.
My answer supports 'turning the other cheek'
Yes - I understand that you think changing the words to mean something else does not mean you have changed them - but at least you do not have to actually turn the other cheek like wot Jesus sed. Not retaliating is good enough for you because you say you love Jesus.
Your "God" is imaginary. I'm saying YOU do these things. YOU think this way.
Kudos on the credentials. A lot of work.
Now, my itty bitty issue:
This is where faith ends and religion actually begins.
BELIEF in Y`shua has nothing to do with Eternal Life.
ACCEPTANCE of the works, the gifts -- YES and everything thereafter.
Compliance with law, does little --as we see today where law is constantly broken or altered.
Hebrew law began as 1 complied command and became 613 impossible stumbling blocks of belief. Couple with additional civil laws adopted by the Greek, Roman, Assyrian and Babylonian cultures.
Believing is something believers do, so what separates the sheep from goats -both are believers... Even --according to the texts-- demons believe too.
I think what creates religion is that: just believing.
Belief requires little to nothing, is not challenged and produces highly stringent ideologies.
You can't see the incredible silliness of that statement?
Do you ever THINK about this stuff? If - IF - this incredible fantasy were real, demons wouldn't "believe". They'd KNOW.
I shake my head in despair. Not a shred of logic.
(I'm not picking on you - not this time anyway. I realize you are just reporting a bit of illogical nonsense from your religious text.)
And here it is:
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
PC, it is not my religious text, it is A theistic text --which apparently is okay for atheists to use against theists but a non-theist/non-atheist, such as myself, is not permitted to?
Yes, I see your brilliant logic working here, sir.
And what is with the "thou". (Charlton Heston voice)?
Have you been reading the KJV again? LOL.
I didn't say you were not permitted to. I am just pointing out how illogical the text is. Not your fault.
As to KJV, yeah, I prefer to quote from that. It makes it sound even more silly.
I see no silliness in the text, as it was written to imply something.
That implication suggests many points.
A key point in that particular text, speaks volumes of action ( gaining experience by doing, full throttle trying, testing, etc) versus the present day expression of a belief system.
If you can't see the lack of logic, so be it. It's there just the same. I suspect that, as usual, you just refuse to admit it, what with it being about Make Believe Invisible Pal and all his delusional disciples, right? It would be disrespectful to notice the foolishness of the statement.
Not for nothing and with all due respect, you express no real logic --sorry, not personal or anything, but you don't. Your logic is made of quips and squall, which to me --a seasoned philosopher-- makes literally and figuratively-- no "sense". Nothing you present is rational, or has any fact (testable experience), only anger filled post-theistic rhetoric, else post-mortem slivered, ideologies of a masculine expression of The Ism (science).
I need no respect from you.
The words are illogical, whether you can understand that or not. The usual theist redefinition of words is a common method to avoid the truth that your creeds are full of contradictions and lies. I understand that you need to do this. Don't expect me to let it pass unnoted, though.
And yet, in that other thread, where actual proof about your imaginary pal was presented, you were unable to refute the logic.
There, as here, all you were able to do was pretend that I am inferior to your inintelligence.
Attacking me doesn't change reality. It is you who make illogical statements, not I.
The key point being that you are doing what you accuse your theistic cousins of doing. You are spouting from a book and not trying, testing experiencing etc.
You live in a city, breed, communicate via the internetz and pickle strawberries.
If you did not spout - this whole issue would go away. As some one else mentioned - Atheists are society's damage control.
But - as you are a big fan of labeling people - I have decided to convert to ignostiscism, so you can please refrain from lumping me in with the scientists who create the products you base your entire life around and then spend all your time telling people they should not do such a thing. Sound familiar? Yup - a belief in an Invisible Super Being will do that to ya.
See, this is what confuses me too. Twenty One days always posts so thoughtfully. Seems pretty dispassionate in his assessments. Why can't atheists agree with him? Or, at the least, concede the points he's made that no argument seems available on? It's a mystery.
So you think that his theories about sentient rocks make perfect sense?
I believe the statement was, points that he is obviously right on. I have no problem with the concept that all matter has a sense of being. I suppose that's an acceptable point to argue though.
I don't find it worth arguing.
If you will remember, James used that claim in another thread. It's utterly ridiculous.
I do apologize. I have difficulty keeping track, with all of the clamour. Perhaps I wil run across the conversation today. Thanks for the information. As always, you're a very helpful guy.
Perhaps if you were not so busy with religious fantasy, your mind might be better able to track reality?
Hmmm, if it were truly fantasy I would say ' Good point.'
It is and your behavior demonstrates this quite adequately.
Impressive powers of denial though. The force is strong in this one.
It is truly fantasy and I have proved that to you.
You've admitted your inability to refute that proof. Why do you still cling to your silly beliefs?
Pcunix, your buddy beelzedad has pointed out that my sickeningly sweet posts are irritating. He was right. I can see how it might have been perceived as rude. But, I'll be honest, I really like you. You just really don't get it. Your posts are so fun to read.
A lot of people like me. I'm a smart and interesting person and I always speak truth. That's also why a lot of people dislike me. Why should I care that you are among either of those?
You like that pickled strawberries recipe huh? Woop-woop!
ps, I am testing: the words, the responses, the actions and those of my own also.
and so far, I have a measure of experience and certainly much more to come.