Honestly, if I believed in the Easter Bunny and co. I would do everything in my power to go to hell. Think about it. If Christ wants you to suffer this much on earth, just imagine what the masochistic cunt will do to you once he's got you in his sanctum. Better pack some lube in that casket.

Honestly, if I believed in the Easter Bunny and co. I would do everything in my power to go to hell. Think about it. If Christ wants you to suffer this much on earth, just imagine what the masochistic cunt will do to you once he's got you in his sanctum. Better pack some lube in that casket.

The Easter Bunny has got nothing to do with this. One is a fairly tale, the other is reality.

And who told you that Christ wants us to suffer? And where did you hear that He wants you to go to hell?? And where did you read that hell is "his sanctum"???

Seriously, you need to do some better research before posting crap like that here. Please.

The Bible is not a book of fairly tales, even though so many people seem to think so. And yes, I believe everything written in the Bible really happened. As the inspired word of God Himself, it can't have some truth and some error. If it was just written by men alone, then it would have loads of errors and contradictions. But if it was truly inspired by God, it would have to be infallible.

And 'magic' (as we think of it) might not exist, but spiritual powers and demons certainly do, and they are behind the real witchcraft in the world. Witches exist, even if they don't fly around on broom sticks with black cats.

But it's good to discuss this kind of stuff. :)

The Easter Bunny has got nothing to do with this. One is a fairly tale, the other is reality.

And who told you that Christ wants us to suffer? And where did you hear that He wants you to go to hell?? And where did you read that hell is "his sanctum"???

Seriously, you need to do some better research before posting crap like that here. Please.

Stop harassing me.

Stop harassing me.

Harassing - "To subject someone to aggressive pressure or intimidation." I'm sorry, but I wasn't harassing you.

I apologise if I seemed a little worked-up, but I find it very difficult not getting upset when someone unjustifiably refers to my gracious, loving Saviour as a masochistic c*nt.

How would you feel if I referred to someone whom you love deeply as the same?

discussions like that are fun up to a point.
i passed that point a while ago.

each participants is bound by their belief systems, which make all of us simply repeat from a certain point on.
none of us can prove anything, hence the word "belief system" (we can not even "prove" the belief system science ultimately, only up to a point)

we should keep that in mind.
we discuss beliefs. none of us should present those as (general) facts.
The fact that for those who believe sth. those are facts, not withstanding. But what each individual beliefs and does not make it a general fact (even if there are many individuals. It is not quantity that makes things a fact: in the middle ages everyone believed earth to be flat, that belief did not make earth flat though)

Look, Sulley, you're a good friend, and I'm open to debates and try or tend to be respectable of other people's religious. But I'm atheist (I think actually agnostic, since I don't believe in anything that hasn't been proven) so I'd rather not keep on about the subject, but I'd shown (in a good respectable way, I think) my beliefs about it.

You've been a good friend too, and I completely respect your position as an agnostic. I am glad you are respectful of other beliefs, just as I am. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)

Harassing - "To subject someone to aggressive pressure or intimidation." I'm sorry, but I wasn't harassing you.

I apologise if I seemed a little worked-up, but I find it very difficult not getting upset when someone unjustifiably refers to my gracious, loving Saviour as a masochistic c*nt.

How would you feel if I referred to someone whom you love deeply as the same?

If a bunch of people started telling me that my father was a twisted, demented psychopath, I would be pretty shocked. I've known him my whole life, and he seems like nothing of the sort. I would confirm that we are discussing the same person. "You mean the man who lives at this address, right? The famous author?" If they agreed, I would ask them how on earth they formed this opinion. If they cited rumors and myths, I would try to dissuade them, or simply throw up my arms in disgust. But perhaps they told me something else. Perhaps they said "your father has a famous enemy, correct? Yes, that very bad man who does terrible things to people. What you don't realize is, your father is completely capable of stopping this man from hurting people, but he chooses not to in order to test them. He has said so himself." I would be quite startled. Could this be true? I would investigate their claims, and if my father did in fact state that he is sufficiently powerful to stop this bad man at any time, I would confront him over it. If he told me "no son, I am not that powerful," then I would breathe a sigh of relief. But if he told me "yes, I can stop him, but I choose not to. You see, some people deserve to suffer. I see to it that he does not hurt those who have placed their trust in me," I would slap him in the face and be gone.

@Shad
suffering might be no fun, an inconvenience, and other things, but what about the idea suffering is something that is needed? something important?
what if taking away the suffering would mean a bigger loss for humanity in the long run?

(not talking about god's existence here, just suffering as a concept)

On a sidenote, I would maybe give my father the chance to explain what he means by "some people deserve to suffer" (or whatever other way he might put it).
that sentence though "I see to it that he does not hurt those who have placed their trust in me" reminds of "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
and of Mafia. Or any other institution of power. OR a state of being delusional.


No offense, James.

@Shad
suffering might be no fun, an inconvenience, and other things, but what about the idea suffering is something that is needed? something important?
what if taking away the suffering would mean a bigger loss for humanity in the long run?

If a benevolent figure was in charge of overseeing it, there would be certain controls and cut-offs. People would not be, for instance, skinned alive or locked in basements and raped for 20 years. We wouldn't have factory farms. This is why I say, if there is an omnipotent god directly involved in ours lives, he is evil.

If a benevolent figure was in charge of overseeing it, there would be certain controls and cut-offs. People would not be, for instance, skinned alive or locked in basements and raped for 20 years. We wouldn't have factory farms. This is why I say, if there is an omnipotent god directly involved in ours lives, he is evil.
This is a very good charge against theism, and it's the kind of question that keeps me up at night. Is God really justified in allowing all the suffering in the world? To be honest, I don't really know -- I think so -- but I don't know. But even though this is a question I think about a lot, it hasn't led me to doubt. I'll try to explain why. Disclaimer: I'm not a prophet, and God is under no obligation to agree with anything I say. I don't think I need to point that out, but just in case.

Let's continue that conversation with the father. I think sorei was right to suggest that one should ask him to explain what he means by saying "some people deserve to suffer." He might respond by saying, "well what about those people who lock others in their basements and rape them. Don't they deserve to suffer?" But of course some such people get away with it -- some of them even prosper. To which he might reply, "no one who does evil escapes judgement forever, they may live well in this life, but what about the next? Besides, who is better able to give people what they deserve: a court that has to reconstruct the case from evidence, or the one who watched them become the monster they are? The one who knows every one of their evil thoughts. But even so, I would let the whole thing go if they would only turn back."

This seems fine to me, even merciful, but he's forgetting about the victims. What about them? "You have no idea how many people come to me for comfort in their pain. And it's always there for them when they ask." This is probably what he meant before by "I see to it that he does not hurt those who have placed their trust in me," but as sorei pointed out, that's racketeering! "If there were anyone else who could provide the kind of comfort I provide, I would be more than happy to let people go to them. You've seen this yourself. Some people trust me, but many place their faith elsewhere. Do I stop them? The problem is that most of those other people and things aren't real. I could write them into existence, but that would just be fooling people." But this doesn't answer the main question. Is so much pain really necessary? "When people look back on their lives, they realize that the bad things made them who they are as much as the good. You might think that some degree of anguish is too much. That people have a certain threshold of pain, and after that they're broken forever. It's true that pain is a terrible thing, at least on its own, and it's true that the scars of suffering often last a long time. If you want proof just look at my wrists, feet, and side. But people are resilient like you wouldn't believe. In a decade, most of the pain is gone; in a century, the scars just add character. Just wait and see how people look back on their lives from the other edge of eternity."

This is a very good charge against theism, and it's the kind of question that keeps me up at night. Is God really justified in allowing all the suffering in the world? To be honest, I don't really know -- I think so -- but I don't know. But even though this is a question I think about a lot, it hasn't led me to doubt. I'll try to explain why. Disclaimer: I'm not a prophet, and God is under no obligation to agree with anything I say. I don't think I need to point that out, but just in case.

Let's continue that conversation with the father. I think sorei was right to suggest that one should ask him to explain what he means by saying "some people deserve to suffer." He might respond by saying, "well what about those people who lock others in their basements and rape them. Don't they deserve to suffer?" But of course some such people get away with it -- some of them even prosper. To which he might reply, "no one who does evil escapes judgement forever, they may live well in this life, but what about the next? Besides, who is better able to give people what they deserve: a court that has to reconstruct the case from evidence, or the one who watched them become the monster they are? The one who knows every one of their evil thoughts. But even so, I would let the whole thing go if they would only turn back."

This seems fine to me, even merciful, but he's forgetting about the victims. What about them? "You have no idea how many people come to me for comfort in their pain. And it's always there for them when they ask." This is probably what he meant before by "I see to it that he does not hurt those who have placed their trust in me," but as sorei pointed out, that's racketeering! "If there were anyone else who could provide the kind of comfort I provide, I would be more than happy to let people go to them. You've seen this yourself. Some people trust me, but many place their faith elsewhere. Do I stop them? The problem is that most of those other people and things aren't real. I could write them into existence, but that would just be fooling people." But this doesn't answer the main question. Is so much pain really necessary? "When people look back on their lives, they realize that the bad things made them who they are as much as the good. You might think that some degree of anguish is too much. That people have a certain threshold of pain, and after that they're broken forever. It's true that pain is a terrible thing, at least on its own, and it's true that the scars of suffering often last a long time. If you want proof just look at my wrists, feet, and side. But people are resilient like you wouldn't believe. In a decade, most of the pain is gone; in a century, the scars just add character. Just wait and see how people look back on their lives from the other edge of eternity."

There are three things I don't like about this, and they account for a lot of what makes popular Christian views particularly dangerous to society.

1) Scars from the degree of pain in question do not heal. This is medically and statistically pretty well proven, and I think Christians deny it to salvage their theology at the victim's expense. Your argument denies the existence of PTSD, and because a large segment of society is in the same boat as you, a lot of people in need of help are ridiculed and encouraged to deny treatment. My uncle, for instance, was one of the most generous and caring men I ever knew, and he had to face constant ridicule his entire adult life for not being able to hold a job after two years in the thick of Vietnam. The flashbacks ultimately got to him and he hung himself after 40 miserable years. Would a benevolent god turn up the pain notch every moment that his hapless subject grows strong enough to tolerate the previous level, no matter that the subject continued to serve him, to the point of insanity and suicide? This sounds like an act of "evil" not unlike the rapist.

2) In only one of my three examples did the victim survive. Survival is necessary for the victim to "benefit" from the torture, correct? In one case, the victim is tortured to death. In the other, I referred to animals which are brutally maimed without anesthesia shortly after birth, forced to live in a box so small that they are incapable of moving, and then ultimately butchered alive. Most Christians I know would explain that animals do not have souls. This was actually a major issue in classical biology, when Christian scientists used theology to justify vivisections. If your god tortures kittens for pleasure, he qualifies for my definition of evil.

3) You ask whether the people "who lock others in their basements and rape them" deserve to suffer, and you take it for granted that the answer is yes. This is very dangerous in a number of ways. It encourages a criminal justice system based upon punishment and revenge rather than rehabilitation. When I briefly worked in a state prison, inmates were abused and dehumanized as a matter of standard practice, and many of them left the system as much more dangerous threats to society than they had been upon incarceration. Many individuals who exhibit criminal behavior suffer from treatable conditions. If we employed scientific rather than theological reasoning to deal with those who do not function in society, we would enjoy lower violent crime rates--perhaps rates comparable to the EU.
This assumption that "crime" deserves "punishment" also encourages gross stereotyping and generally belligerent behavior on every level of many Christians' daily lives. For instance, everyone I know who believes in corporal punishment for children is a Christian. Everyone I know who advocates "nuking" the Middle East is, also without exception, a self-proclaimed Christian. If there was no connection here, this should not be the case, as polls show that only 70% of Americans identify as Christian.
Would a loving god insist we believe that all truly abhorrent crimes arise from "evil" when science has shown that many of these criminals suffer from chemical imbalances which they have no control over? And why would he create these imbalances? Why would he smile more fondly on those who beat their children than on those who constructively correct them?

Now, if you'll humor me with a response, allow me to stipulate some conditions here:

For this exercise, I am not arguing that Christianity is a human construct. I am merely arguing that its god, if real, is surely evil.

I find that Christians in debates have a very bad habit of offering point-by-point explanations that never add up into a coherent theology, so I want to avoid that as well. I would like for you to address my three points by recrafting your previous post to accommodate them.

"We can never know all of the mysteries of God" is not an acceptable answer. God designed me to have an understanding of evil. God clearly meets the definition of evil which He gave to me. "Bottom line, the Bible says x" is also not an acceptable answer. It is a response used as a last ditch effort to avoid honest replies. It is the same cop-out as the "mystery" approach. Whatever the Bible says is quite irrelevant anyway, because if I believe he is evil then he is likely lying to me. We must assess his actions here.

Also, please note that I am not necessarily anti-religious or even anti-Christian. I am against the popular brand of American Protestantism which your post indicates that you subscribe to. There are brands of Christianity which I find acceptably benign.

I am going to interject if only to say that whoever came up with this thread is an absolute moron. Why must religious and theistic debate be a constant? Especially on a forum not designed to advance a discussion of similar weight and so condemned from birth to echo reductionist, blatantly ignorant arguments (surprisingly) from both sides. Honestly, what difference does it make if I say that seeing intelligent people blindly holding convictions in the twenty-first fucking century is inexplicably infuriating; or viceversa. None of this is going to have a positive, lasting impact nor advance any sort of informative, worthwhile discussion - barring the presence of any essayists or philosophers. All this can do is simply taint the good, virtual relationships people try to build on here. If any of the higher beings on this forum are listening, this is the kind of thread that should require strict moderation if not outright censure.

Hail Satan. Peace.

I wanna know Sulley's opinion on homosexuals (and lesbians though it's the same included in one word).

My opinion on homosexuals? Ok, you asked, so I trust you won't go jumping on my back and start tearing me to shreds. ;)

I love them. Just as much as I love any other person. I know many gay people who are absolutely delightful. This does not mean, however, that I agree with what they practice. I believe God created man and woman for each other. Their bodies very clearly fit together and are, in my opinion, very obviously designed for each other. Therefore, if God created man and woman, and created sex, then He has the right to decree how sex should be used. The Bible clearly states that sex, and marriage for that matter, are for one man and one woman, and nothing else. So I have to submit to that. Mankind, however, has used and abused sex over time and has utterly rejected God's original intent. The many consequences of this are very obvious - marriage break-ups, adultery, STDs, child sex, abuse, rape, injury, etc. If mankind had stuck to God's instructions and had the self-control to keep sex between married men and women, we wouldn't have these problems.

So my opinion? I love homosexuals as much as I love straights, and I would never treat a homosexual differently to anyone else. I don't discriminate against them.

Is that a satisfactory answer?

Sodom and Gomorrah

I am going to interject if only to say that whoever came up with this thread is an absolute moron. Why must religious and theistic debate be a constant? Especially on a forum not designed to advance a discussion of similar weight and so condemned from birth to echo reductionist, blatantly ignorant arguments (surprisingly) from both sides. Honestly, what difference does it make if I say that seeing intelligent people blindly holding convictions in the twenty-first fucking century is inexplicably infuriating; or viceversa. None of this is going to have a positive, lasting impact nor advance any sort of informative, worthwhile discussion - barring the presence of any essayists or philosophers. All this can do is simply taint the good, virtual relationships people try to build on here. If any of the higher beings on this forum are listening, this is the kind of thread that should require strict moderation if not outright censure.

I was a philosophy major. Does this mean we can keep arguing please? :???:

Sodom and Gomorrah

The cities God visited his Holy H-bombs onto. I wonder how many children and unborn babies died when God nuked S & G? That act makes Him one of creation's single greatest abortionist and murderer. I mean, that act goes against the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" edict which his number one bullet point on his holy Powerpoint presentation, a.k.a. The Ten Commandments. (The stone tablets, not the Charlton Heston film, which was way better than Ridley Scott's version.)

Of course, maybe He's a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do kind of God.

And don't forget The Flood. There, he killed almost the entire human population. Genocidal despots fantasize about that level of killing.

But, it's okay. He's a kind and loving God who sent us his only son.

And then let him die in agony on the cross.

It's a good thing for humans God does love us because imagine what he would do if he hated us.

My opinion on negroes? Ok, you asked, so I trust you won't go jumping on my back and start tearing me to shreds. ;)

I love them. Just as much as I love any other person. I know many black people who are absolutely delightful. This does not mean, however, that I believe they should be allowed to vote. I believe God created whites to rule over the lesser races. Their culture is very clearly more intellectual and, in my opinion, very obviously designed to guide and instruct. Therefore, if God created races, and created hierarchy, then He has the right to decree who should be in charge. The Bible clearly states that certain races and descendents are His chosen people, while others are not. So I have to submit to that. The Aryan race, however, has used and abused social order over time and has utterly rejected God's original intent. The many consequences of this are very obvious - slavery, genocide, lynchings, etc. If Aryans had stuck to God's instructions and had the self-control to use their supremacy for good, we wouldn't have these problems.

So my opinion? I love negroes as much as I love whites, and I would never treat a negro differently to anyone else. I don't discriminate against them.

Is that a satisfactory answer?


Your opinion is simply the best.. if only all religious people were like you. You don't agree with it for your beliefs and religion, yet that doesn't make you hate them or make their life impossible like some extreme religious people. Like.. it'd be hypocrital to hate on gays, because after all they're still persons and religions (at least those with Jesus) say to love thy neighbour no matter what. Also it's not like people being gay is gonna affect your life somehow.

It really isn't. Passive oppression is still oppression. In fact, because we are lucky enough to live in a country where mobs cannot take justice into their own hands, the consequences of the belligerent homophobe and the fatherly, disappointed yet still loving homophobe are effectively the same. Both pursue the same agenda of social oppression. One just does it with a warm, arrogant smile. (Unless Sullivan actually votes in favor of social equality issues like gay marriage, but if he does he is a minority among people who share his opinion.)

I was a philosophy major. Does this mean we can keep arguing please? :???:

Sigh. I guess so... And seeing how my previous considerations went unheeded,


He has the right to decree how sex should be used. The Bible clearly states that sex, and marriage for that matter, are for one man and one woman, and nothing else. So I have to submit to that. Mankind, however, has used and abused sex over time and has utterly rejected God's original intent. The many consequences of this are very obvious - marriage break-ups, adultery, STDs, child sex, abuse, rape, injury, etc.

Some disjointed considerations finding their origin in wine to point out the fallacies at the heart of your statement that there has been an abuse of sexuality "over time". Too tired and possibly intellectually incapable - at least at the moment - to be cohesive about this:
- STI/Ds are biblically "recorded". The Bible contains explicit references in Leviticus to physical afflictions today known to be manifestations symptomatic of syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.
- Leviticus is right around the time of the Holiness code if I'm not mistaken. The Holiness code prohibits incest, however if one is not to forego logic completely (seeing how biblical events are disputed as having actually occurred as reported, one is necessarily prohibited from suspending belief which would otherwise be acceptable) how do you reconcile the Bible's teachings with the logical conclusion that Cain's wife in Genesis could only have been either his mother or his sister?
- There are numerous other instances throughout the Bible logically cornering us into the conclusion that incest and homosexuality were common practice among God's "spokespeople" (another example coming to mind being relationship between Ham and Noah, but I'm sure you know there are more).
- Prior to any injury derived from abuse of one's own sexuality, God killed people for masturbating (this continued well after the alleged events of Sodom and Gomorrah). Side note: I just find the intolerance funny; I would find it horrifying if it were true, but I find it funny.
- Also, consider that the allegation of "child sex" as birthed from the frequency of the infidel's sexual whim is horrifically insulting given that it is an all-but-standardized practice particularly in Christian establishments.


As the inspired word of God Himself, it can't have some truth and some error. If it was just written by men alone, then it would have loads of errors and contradictions. But if it was truly inspired by God, it would have to be infallible.

In reference to an earlier post of yours, I am puzzled by what you are asserting. You seem to assert The Bible is the word of God, but then posit it as an open-ended dichotomy. Regardless... the Bible, in particular the New Testament, is widely accepted to be no more than an arbitrary collection assembled by the Church (not God; and also acknowledge by itself as much!) of discordant anecdotes proved-beyond-refutable-doubt to not have been written by any one single author to whom its various comprising fragments have been attributed, furthermore egregiously mis-translated through the centuries by a membership as aggressive and belligerent as it was illiterate; cultured men of the time opting to occupy themselves with other endeavors, for obvious reasons.

Also, and bear with me if you've already answered, if you truly take the words of the Bible as purveying the one singular truth please explain which version you read from? Furthermore, are you not existentially disturbed, nor near schizophrenically affected by the fact that the language of your biblical rock has been passed on in different shapes, lengths and varieties through the ages subject to both temporal ill-keeping and man- and God-procured destruction? But what I'm more curious about is, as concerns the teachings of the New Testament, what drives you to favor one self-proclaimed God-inspired text over another as could be, say, the apocrypha which claimed, as the synoptic gospels, to be the word of God? If your answer is in any way related to the legitimacy given to it by the Church, then might I remind you that the world is not flat and that the Church has recanted its doctrines far more often and with more desperation than Galileo ever did when threatened with Giordano Bruno's fate. My questions to you are: what do you as a religious man, who if I'm to take to be sound of mind must no longer believe the world to be flat (as was at one point in time decreed by the Church), define as forming the whole of the (or possibly your) Bible; and does your definition of the Bible survive falsifiability or is it something the boundaries of which are conveniently still not definitive (which today, as I am sure most would agree, must categorically fall in the realm of nonsense of the highest order)?

Ah, negroes? That term died in the 1960's.

What's your sarcastic point? At least he isn't trying to quit off gay rights or anything, at least he talks to gay people, at least he's not radical enough to try and say it's an abomination or they need to be killed. He DOESN'T hates gays. He disagrees with a thing, but for him they are persons like you and I. He treats them the same.


It really isn't. Passive oppression is still oppression. In fact, because we are lucky enough to live in a country where mobs cannot take justice into their own hands, the consequences of the belligerent homophobe and the fatherly, disappointed yet still loving homophobe are effectively the same. Both pursue the same agenda of social oppression. One just does it with a warm, arrogant smile. (Unless Sullivan actually votes in favor of social equality issues like gay marriage, but if he does he is a minority among people who share his opinion.)

Point highlighted in red. Not sure what's sarcastic about it.

Ah, negroes? That term died in the 1960's.

Though Brown v Board of Education culturally affected the definition of Jim Crow, it only purported to do so and it took years, even well after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to expunge it completely, which it hasn't been. Minority children in big cities are statistically more likely to be educated in a virtually all-minority school, where such terminology is still prevalent. That and it is undeniable how older generations still identify with the term. If I'm not mistaken it was included in the 2010 Census.

Edit: Yes, I'll pedantically nag you forever. Be flattered. It's the closest I will ever come to extending an olive branch.

Though Brown v Board of Education culturally affected the definition of Jim Crow, it only purported to do so and it took years, even well after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to expunge it completely, which it hasn't been. Minority children in big cities are statistically more likely to be educated in a virtually all-minority school, where such terminology is still prevalent. That and it is undeniable how older generations still identify with the term. If I'm not mistaken it was included in the 2010 Census.

And I used the term to paste an older generation's social issues over top of our own. PonyoBellanote believes I was being sarcastic, probably because what I said sounds so absurd today, but my grandparents proudly advocated the stance I presented and were considered relatively progressive Christians for it. I hope that when I am old, people will look back at Sullivan's post and take him to be a sarcastic troll too.

Though Brown v Board of Education culturally affected the definition of Jim Crow, it only purported to do so and it took years, even well after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to expunge it completely, which it hasn't been. Minority children in big cities are statistically more likely to be educated in a virtually all-minority school, where such terminology is still prevalent. That and it is undeniable how older generations still identify with the term. If I'm not mistaken it was included in the 2010 Census.

Edit: Yes, I'll pedantically nag you forever. Be flattered. It's the closest I will ever come to extending an olive branch.

The 2010 census had Black, African American and Negro, in that order. The word began falling out of favor in the mid 1960's when Stokely Carmichael coined the term "black power." Most institutions, government and private, stopped using the word Negro by the 1970's and the Supreme Court under Thurgood Marshall made its final use of the world in 1985. People criticize the census for still using the term Negro, its justification being older African Americans still use it.

I'm guessing most people frequenting this forum were born long after the word died out in popular usage.

But not to worry, since there is neither a Heaven or Hell, when we die, that's it. One and done, done and dusted, lights out.

Absolutely and emphatically; no.

No to what? The heartbreak of psoriasis? Nipples on men? Sardines on pizza?

#FreeTheNipple and sardines on pizza are delightful. Pineapple on pizza, on the other hand, is tantamount to fraud.

Edit:


Absolutely and emphatically; no.

I really think the em dash would've worked better than the semi-colon and it's bugging me. "Absolutely and emphatically�no." It feels cleaner, smoother. Amiright?

I'm sorry this response took so long. I didn't expect the conversation to move so far ahead. It seems to have quieted down now, though, so I don't think I'm interrupting anything.


Now, if you'll humor me with a response, allow me to stipulate some conditions here:

For this exercise, I am not arguing that Christianity is a human construct. I am merely arguing that its god, if real, is surely evil.

I find that Christians in debates have a very bad habit of offering point-by-point explanations that never add up into a coherent theology, so I want to avoid that as well. I would like for you to address my three points by recrafting your previous post to accommodate them.

"We can never know all of the mysteries of God" is not an acceptable answer. God designed me to have an understanding of evil. God clearly meets the definition of evil which He gave to me. "Bottom line, the Bible says x" is also not an acceptable answer. It is a response used as a last ditch effort to avoid honest replies. It is the same cop-out as the "mystery" approach. Whatever the Bible says is quite irrelevant anyway, because if I believe he is evil then he is likely lying to me. We must assess his actions here.

Those conditions sound fair. If I'm going to stick to the second one, it seems best to start by reiterating my position in a bit more detail, and then go through your objections to apply/modify it.

My thoughts on this topic are based on a distinction between natural and moral goods/evils. People tend to make this kind of distinction when discussing the problem of evil, but I think my way of drawing the line might be idiosyncratic, so bear with me. Natural goods derive from pleasure, while moral goods derive from wisdom. So while you might describe an action or character as wise, it's a state of the world that's pleasant. If you describe an action as pleasant, you're really describing the consequences or performance of the action, and not the action itself, which is an act of will. But I don't want to waste too much time describing my theory of action or ethics.

Moral goods are incomparably preferable to natural goods. It's our nature as rational beings to love wisdom even if it costs us much pain, and to forgo pleasure if it's unwise. To me, it's no wonder at all that the Bible says that "wisdom is more precious than rubies," since all experience bears this out. But some people see the relation backward, that wisdom is justified because it leads to pleasure. I'm just trying to relate my own thoughts here, not provide a comprehensive argument, so I won't respond to that position just now.

While we're swept along by natural goods and evils, moral good is always in our power. This is just a consequence of moral agency. I'm not saying that we can become wise in a vacuum: for our choices to be meaningful, we need influences to pull us this way and that, and consequences to provide feedback. But in all circumstances, the ability to choose wisely or unwisely is ours. The other things, both pleasant and painful are given by God to help form us into what we will be.

So choices are required, but why are choices tortuous when they could merely be challenging? And why would God create people who turn away from Him? I feel these questions can be answered by zooming out from each choice to the whole human life. In the end, as a whole, a particular person can't exist without their particular circumstances, choices, and consequences. A life, even a miserable one, is justified because it's the only possible way to create a particular person. That person is likewise justified because it was wrought by itself.

So, the objections:


1) Scars from the degree of pain in question do not heal. This is medically and statistically pretty well proven, and I think Christians deny it to salvage their theology at the victim's expense. Your argument denies the existence of PTSD, and because a large segment of society is in the same boat as you, a lot of people in need of help are ridiculed and encouraged to deny treatment. My uncle, for instance, was one of the most generous and caring men I ever knew, and he had to face constant ridicule his entire adult life for not being able to hold a job after two years in the thick of Vietnam. The flashbacks ultimately got to him and he hung himself after 40 miserable years. Would a benevolent god turn up the pain notch every moment that his hapless subject grows strong enough to tolerate the previous level, no matter that the subject continued to serve him, to the point of insanity and suicide? This sounds like an act of "evil" not unlike the rapist.

I don't mean to deny the existence or severity of PTSD. It's better to be corrected than wrong, so I want you to tell me if I'm misinformed or insensitive, but here's my view of the disorder. You're right to compare the evil of PTSD to rape -- they both seem to be natural evils. The crucial difference is that the tormentor is a force inside the victim's mind. Because this force is invisible, people are prone to jump to the conclusion that the sufferer is causing their own suffering. This might be true if PTSD were cowardice, but it's not.


2) In only one of my three examples did the victim survive. Survival is necessary for the victim to "benefit" from the torture, correct? In one case, the victim is tortured to death. In the other, I referred to animals which are brutally maimed without anesthesia shortly after birth, forced to live in a box so small that they are incapable of moving, and then ultimately butchered alive. Most Christians I know would explain that animals do not have souls. This was actually a major issue in classical biology, when Christian scientists used theology to justify vivisections. If your god tortures kittens for pleasure, he qualifies for my definition of evil.

No, I don't think survival is necessary for the victim to benefit from suffering. As long as we're conscious, moral good and evil are both in our power. When we're not conscious, it's hard to see how we suffer.

As for animals having souls, I think they do. It seems that something like a soul is necessary for good or evil to apply to something, and while it seems odd to call non-human animals wise, it's natural to describe them as being in pain or pleasure. This is only my intuition, though.


3) You ask whether the people "who lock others in their basements and rape them" deserve to suffer, and you take it for granted that the answer is yes. This is very dangerous in a number of ways. It encourages a criminal justice system based upon punishment and revenge rather than rehabilitation. When I briefly worked in a state prison, inmates were abused and dehumanized as a matter of standard practice, and many of them left the system as much more dangerous threats to society than they had been upon incarceration. Many individuals who exhibit criminal behavior suffer from treatable conditions. If we employed scientific rather than theological reasoning to deal with those who do not function in society, we would enjoy lower violent crime rates--perhaps rates comparable to the EU.
This assumption that "crime" deserves "punishment" also encourages gross stereotyping and generally belligerent behavior on every level of many Christians' daily lives. For instance, everyone I know who believes in corporal punishment for children is a Christian. Everyone I know who advocates "nuking" the Middle East is, also without exception, a self-proclaimed Christian. If there was no connection here, this should not be the case, as polls show that only 70% of Americans identify as Christian.
Would a loving god insist we believe that all truly abhorrent crimes arise from "evil" when science has shown that many of these criminals suffer from chemical imbalances which they have no control over? And why would he create these imbalances? Why would he smile more fondly on those who beat their children than on those who constructively correct them?

This one was my mistake -- I don't really believe in retributive punishment. I think it would be inconsistent for me to. Imagine if I said "suffering exists to build us up," and then finished off with "oh yeah, and you ass holes deserve to suffer." I was aware of what I was saying while I was writing my last post -- I remember that. I'm not sure what was going through my head not to change it.

You can probably guess that my response to chemical imbalances is similar to PTSD. What I want to stress, though, is that we shouldn't expect actions to be a perfect reflection of one's soul. An obvious example is that if one person is prone to alcoholism and another isn't, we shouldn't say that the alcoholic any more immoderate than the other person just because they drink too much. They aren't under the same influences. The same reasoning applies elsewhere. This is why Jesus said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." But this limitation doesn't apply to God, who we assume is omniscient, which makes Him the only fit judge.

As far as corporal punishment goes, I think the connection here is a common cause. Traditionalists tend to favor corporal punishment and be Christians, since both of these were the norm a few decades ago. About nuking the middle east... there are people who actually want that? Like as in they're not joking? Have they not thought that through or something, because that sounds pretty ridiculous.

That religion is the opiate of.

Opiate of what?

Opiate of what?

Really? You could have goggled and learned the answer in the time it took you to post that question.

Sigh.

Here's the full quotation, in context, since it is so often misquoted and misconstrued:


The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Really? You could have goggled and learned the answer in the time it took you to post that question.

It was an incomplete sentence. You can't google an incomplete sentence.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------


Sigh.

Here's the full quotation, in context, since it is so often misquoted and misconstrued:

I disagree whole heartedly with it.

It was an incomplete sentence. You can't google an incomplete sentence.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------



You obviously don't understand how search engines work so let's make this a teaching moment. shall we? (Let me first put on my Mr. Know-It-All beanie. Propeller equipped, of course.)

Search engines do not look at every word you type into it. Google does not search out common words: for example, is as, the, of, where . . . This deliberate ignoring of common words permits the engine to search at a faster rate. So, any sentence you type, the engine will not include those words in its search and, in effect, any sentence is an incomplete sentence.

You probably didn't even bother to goggle what I wrote. (Your mind is made up, so why bother with the facts, right?) I mean, it's always easier to have someone else do the work for you than do it yourself.

I disagree whole heartedly with it.

Of course you would. Junkies never disagree with their dealer.

I have an idea. Just write complete sentences that make sense.

I have a better idea: learn to think for yourself. But religion is your crutch. It's so much easier to do what someone else tells you.

I have a better idea: learn to think for yourself. But religion is your crutch. It's so much easier to do what someone else tells you.

I do think for myself and the evidence supports what the Bible says to be true and God's word.

Of course you would. Junkies never disagree with their dealer.

Uhh huhh.....Hmmmmm....

THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):

WHOLE VIDEO:

Where Did the New Testament Come From? - Today's Christian Videos (http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX)

Story of Angel and Cousin Sarah


Several years ago, My cousin was playing with a lighter in his bedroom. He caught a newspaper or comic book or something on fire and threw it on his bed. There were several people sleeping there. The whole house went up in flames. Everyone got out except for my 3 year old cousin sarah. They had written her off as dead. The whole house was in flames and filled with smoke. An off duty fireman happened to be driving by and saw the smoke. He stopped to help. He looked into the bedroom window and saw her sitting under the window with her hands on her head. He pulled her out and she was burned and has some scars to this day. He asked her how she knew to come over to that window and sit on the ground. She said that the man in the fire told her "Don't be afraid, to go over to the window sit down and put your hands over your head and face". Years later, she recounted her story with me. She said that the man had no face, light shining from it, he was 3 feet tall and dressed in white. He was floating in the corner of the room. My Grandparents were deeply committed Christians. Often times my Grandmother would be up all night, having trouble sleeping, praying for the safety of the family. At the same exact time that the fire was going on, my grandmother was several miles away sleeping in her bed. She heard a voice that told her "There's been a fire, Liz and the kids got out ok". A few minutes later, my Grandfather got the call on the phone "There's been a fire, liz and the kids got out ok" He tried to tell her what they said, but she already knew. The reason that God Spoke to her, I believe, is because it was HER prayer that the Lord was answering. Otherwise, my cousin would have died in the fire.

I'm sorry this response took so long. I didn't expect the conversation to move so far ahead. It seems to have quieted down now, though, so I don't think I'm interrupting anything.



Those conditions sound fair. If I'm going to stick to the second one, it seems best to start by reiterating my position in a bit more detail, and then go through your objections to apply/modify it.

My thoughts on this topic are based on a distinction between natural and moral goods/evils. People tend to make this kind of distinction when discussing the problem of evil, but I think my way of drawing the line might be idiosyncratic, so bear with me. Natural goods derive from pleasure, while moral goods derive from wisdom. So while you might describe an action or character as wise, it's a state of the world that's pleasant. If you describe an action as pleasant, you're really describing the consequences or performance of the action, and not the action itself, which is an act of will. But I don't want to waste too much time describing my theory of action or ethics.

Moral goods are incomparably preferable to natural goods. It's our nature as rational beings to love wisdom even if it costs us much pain, and to forgo pleasure if it's unwise. To me, it's no wonder at all that the Bible says that "wisdom is more precious than rubies," since all experience bears this out. But some people see the relation backward, that wisdom is justified because it leads to pleasure. I'm just trying to relate my own thoughts here, not provide a comprehensive argument, so I won't respond to that position just now.

While we're swept along by natural goods and evils, moral good is always in our power. This is just a consequence of moral agency. I'm not saying that we can become wise in a vacuum: for our choices to be meaningful, we need influences to pull us this way and that, and consequences to provide feedback. But in all circumstances, the ability to choose wisely or unwisely is ours. The other things, both pleasant and painful are given by God to help form us into what we will be.

So choices are required, but why are choices tortuous when they could merely be challenging? And why would God create people who turn away from Him? I feel these questions can be answered by zooming out from each choice to the whole human life. In the end, as a whole, a particular person can't exist without their particular circumstances, choices, and consequences. A life, even a miserable one, is justified because it's the only possible way to create a particular person. That person is likewise justified because it was wrought by itself.

So, the objections:



I don't mean to deny the existence or severity of PTSD. It's better to be corrected than wrong, so I want you to tell me if I'm misinformed or insensitive, but here's my view of the disorder. You're right to compare the evil of PTSD to rape -- they both seem to be natural evils. The crucial difference is that the tormentor is a force inside the victim's mind. Because this force is invisible, people are prone to jump to the conclusion that the sufferer is causing their own suffering. This might be true if PTSD were cowardice, but it's not.



No, I don't think survival is necessary for the victim to benefit from suffering. As long as we're conscious, moral good and evil are both in our power. When we're not conscious, it's hard to see how we suffer.

As for animals having souls, I think they do. It seems that something like a soul is necessary for good or evil to apply to something, and while it seems odd to call non-human animals wise, it's natural to describe them as being in pain or pleasure. This is only my intuition, though.



This one was my mistake -- I don't really believe in retributive punishment. I think it would be inconsistent for me to. Imagine if I said "suffering exists to build us up," and then finished off with "oh yeah, and you ass holes deserve to suffer." I was aware of what I was saying while I was writing my last post -- I remember that. I'm not sure what was going through my head not to change it.

You can probably guess that my response to chemical imbalances is similar to PTSD. What I want to stress, though, is that we shouldn't expect actions to be a perfect reflection of one's soul. An obvious example is that if one person is prone to alcoholism and another isn't, we shouldn't say that the alcoholic any more immoderate than the other person just because they drink too much. They aren't under the same influences. The same reasoning applies elsewhere. This is why Jesus said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." But this limitation doesn't apply to God, who we assume is omniscient, which makes Him the only fit judge.

As far as corporal punishment goes, I think the connection here is a common cause. Traditionalists tend to favor corporal punishment and be Christians, since both of these were the norm a few decades ago. About nuking the middle east... there are people who actually want that? Like as in they're not joking? Have they not thought that through or something, because that sounds pretty ridiculous.

I'm a little out of touch with the conversation because I just noticed this response a month after the fact. Sorry about that.

I think you have a really cohesive gig going on here. I am tempted to say "but still, torture? Come onnnnnnn", because I simply cannot swallow that a benevolent god would go THAT far. You have shown extreme cases to serve a purpose, but do the ends justify the means? Really? Well, I would say absolutely not, but that might be a benign disagreement between us personally. My problem with a great number of religions is how people exploit this "justification".

Imagine someone who says "A-ha, this person is suffering terribly. I could put a quick stop to it, but this is God's will." I suspect that your response is, no, my own moral understanding tells me that intervention is the correct course of action. But many take the easier way out and turn a blind eye. One of my (many) big issues is precisely this sort of reasoning. When I was a kid, for instance, I found child pornography on our youth pastor's computer. I told my mother and the head pastor, and they ultimately decided to ignore it and allow him to fulfill his tenure in the position. God put him in this position, after all, and it must be God's will to let him have his way with the little girls under his control. Perhaps it would build character in them, while the youth pastor's struggles were strictly between himself and the Lord. This is an extreme case, but I see it constantly on a smaller scale. How many Christians argue that the government has no right to redistribute wealth? The majority by far, at least in America. Individuals' choices regarding poverty and charity are matters only God can judge, right? It's so convenient.

As an adult, I have pretty much zero tolerance for ideologies which can lead to these sorts of conclusions. People choose the easy way out when they can help it, and a scandal like what my home church potentially faced would have been nasty, so they just fell back on their theology to allow it to continue. Does that mean the entire theological framework must be torn down? Well, my sense of morality says yes. It is too easily abused, and people should not be given an easy way out of intervention.

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll.

THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):

WHOLE VIDEO:

Where Did the New Testament Come From? - Today's Christian Videos (http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX)

Like a camel is a horse by committee, so is the Bible.

And BTW, you misspelled "testament." It's spelled with an "a" not an "i".

The Bible is not a horse. It's a book. As far as misspelling testament goes....Bummer.

You are so right. It. Is. Just. A. Book.

You are so right. It. Is. Just. A. Book.

So is the Quran

And the Blind are Blind.

As those who will not see.

Reason 5871 why I hate evangelical protestant cunts like xfrodobagginsx:

So my grandmother (dad's side) was a pretty devout Catholic and one of the most genuinely good people I've ever met. My mother is an evangelical protestant. In the 30 years I've walked this earth I have never heard her say a good thing about my grandma, and she took every chance she could find to remind my dad and I that Catholics go to hell. (Her idea of hell is, of course, fire, brimstone, eternal torture, pitchforks in the ass, all that great stuff that Bible thumpers get off to.) Grandma died yesterday with the whole family around. A priest read her her last rites, and then my "mother" nudged everyone out of the way and shit all over her with some spiel about it not being too late to accept Jesus into her heart and go to heaven. She then made some comment like "well, her chest isn't rising much, she's probably dead now" and walked out of the room with a big grin on her face because she just scored brownie points with Jesus and got a story to brag to her church friends about.

The vast majority of the really terrible, hateful people I have met in this world have been evangelical Christians. Here was another fine example.

Jesus is not happy with people that claim to be Christian and treat people like that. Jesus never advocated such behavior, but did call people out who did.

Jesus was a pretty cool guy actually. Most Christians in my experience brush what we know of his actual teachings under the rug in favor of some good old Old Testament blood and guts. When you believe that every word in the Bible as translated into English is equally infallible command issuing directly from Jesus, it's pretty easy to pick and choose whatever makes you look the most righteous at everyone else's expense.

The ironic state of affairs is that research has shown the folks who self identify as agnostics and atheists have a better understanding of the bible than those individuals who identify as believers.

Ignorance really is bliss.

I wouldn't say I'm not a believer, I'm Protestant and I'm fairly versed in the Bible and the Prophecies. And I don't believe there's a Hell where everyone whom doesn't believe will burn for eternity. If you understand the translation from the Septuagint it makes more sense. Hell properly translated is the grave, and Jesus was trying to tell people that once you're dead you can't change your ways or mind about things. You need to work it out while you have the chance, so I'm not sure if ignorance IS bliss. I rather believe as the real (Not New Translations (Hacked Up) Bible is telling people, that non believers will be no more, that the consequences are forever. I'm still trying to figure out the logic of non believers who think that existence is without purpose, an accident that happened from nothing.

I don't think you'll find a "logic" to it in the pure sense. It's more like this: an atheistic view begins with the premiss that the scientific method can reveal truths about the universe. A theistic view begins with the premiss that there is a creator/purpose in life. The former approach has produced real, applicable results. The latter approach has consumed a great deal of paper and ink without really getting us anywhere. Sure, a reasonable theist can look at science and say "look at the beautiful symmetry! It attests to a creator!" But it really doesn't. It attests to beautiful symmetry, without which we really couldn't exist to ponder it. It says nothing about why. I don't see any reason to leap to an intelligent design conclusion. If I throw paint at a canvas often enough, sooner or later one toss is going to disperse into some pattern or shape that appears coherent and planned. Maybe our fundamental particles just happened to wind up in a conveniently symmetric universe.

And here's another thing: if I want to humor a creator, intelligent design, etc, I am forced into the assumption that the origin of existence is infinitely complex. In the "beginning", there was this thing out there so intricate that it was able to create all of the things in existence. If I accept an atheistic approach, I can rest easy in the belief that complexity arises from relative simplicity, and the questions of ultimate origin, while still highly mysterious, at least parallel our own scientific observations of how life works.

Well as for myself I've found Scientific support for a Creator, so my belief is not faith based as it used to be when I thought Evolution was part of Gods Creation. Science can also show Gods handy work everywhere as He said it was. So far Archeology has proven that The Bible places and events did happen and the People in it as well. Then you have many Scientific discoveries proving life couldn't just happen by chance. I'm happy with my beliefs that there is more and more scientific support for creation than all the coincidences you would have to believe in if an Atheist. From the Fossil record to Micro-biology. I guess you have to pick which side of the proof you want to believe, but for the Atheist who chooses not to look while others choose to seek, I'm going with the proof and science that show me what I felt all along was the truth. All I can do is mention what I've found. People can look for them selves or just be happy with what they know as is. The first Law is that nothing exists without purpose. You can't get something from nothing. And on the earlier note, I do not, as many others, believe that God punishes people for ever and ever. Rather that the consequences of are forever. when it's over it's over. No more suffering or death.

Just a quick note on Biblical archeology because it happened to be a major focus in my wife's MA, the record actually denies a lot of Old Testament narrative in pretty meaningful ways. For instance, there has been no evidence to support that the Kingdom of David ever existed, while the scant references to the territory which have emerged from the archeological records of real empires at that time paint the region as a bit of an insignificant backwater. On the other hand, the legend served as a significant source of propaganda years later (and in Israel today, for that matter). It is probably an ancient shard of political propaganda.

But this is far beyond the root of the problem anyway. You say you have found scientific support for a Creator, but then you immediately draw on the Bible. This tells me that you are simply not interested in thinking about the world from a scientific perspective. After all, I could call Lord of the Rings holy and point to the ways in which it does accurately reflect things in order to support this claim. I would never convince anyone that I am conducting sound science, because I am not and there is no cultural desire to believe it in this instance. That's not how science works. I respect the theist who looks at evidence and draws conclusions which differ from my own. The individuals who establish their conclusions and then reach for support are hopelessly misguided. Anyone who believes that the Bible is an accurate reflection of how the world works is necessarily a part of this latter group. You can even safely believe that it is somehow divine, but the moment you assert that it is accurate, you have abandoned any semblance of a scientific approach to the subject.

Just a quick note on Biblical archeology because it happened to be a major focus in my wife's MA, the record actually denies a lot of Old Testament narrative in pretty meaningful ways. For instance, there has been no evidence to support that the Kingdom of David ever existed, while the scant references to the territory which have emerged from the archeological records of real empires at that time paint the region as a bit of an insignificant backwater. On the other hand, the legend served as a significant source of propaganda years later (and in Israel today, for that matter). It is probably an ancient shard of political propaganda.

But this is far beyond the root of the problem anyway. You say you have found scientific support for a Creator, but then you immediately draw on the Bible. This tells me that you are simply not interested in thinking about the world from a scientific perspective. After all, I could call Lord of the Rings holy and point to the ways in which it does accurately reflect things in order to support this claim. I would never convince anyone that I am conducting sound science, because I am not and there is no cultural desire to believe it in this instance. That's not how science works. I respect the theist who looks at evidence and draws conclusions which differ from my own. The individuals who establish their conclusions and then reach for support are hopelessly misguided. Anyone who believes that the Bible is an accurate reflection of how the world works is necessarily a part of this latter group. You can even safely believe that it is somehow divine, but the moment you assert that it is accurate, you have abandoned any semblance of a scientific approach to the subject.

New Chronology (Rohl) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl))

David Rohl is not a Christian and never set out to prove the authenticity of the Bible. But the more he researched, the more evidence he found. If you really are open-minded, take a genuine look and give it time. The evidence is astounding. - from evidence for the exodus, Jericho, and King David and Solomon.

As for scientific evidence, there is ample. The Bible completely aside, there is AMPLE scientific evidence. You just have to look at it with an open mind. I have found this book (http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Creationism-Henry-M-Morris/dp/0890510032) (don't worry - I'm not talking about the Bible) to be incredibly helpful. Ignore the reviews - they are clearly from narrow-minded atheists. Please, if you are genuinely interested, give it time and read for yourself.

I didn't draw anything from the Bible, I wasn't giving any proof. I did that in earlier posts. In fact I keep asking for Scientific proof of Evolution but no one can give an answer. Referencing a TV show without any proof within that doesn't get it.

Here is a Christian theologian I can appreciate. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg)

Cool. The quicker we kill off God, the better.

Here is a Christian theologian I can appreciate. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg)

That man is not a Christian. He clearly doesn't understand the Bible in any way, shape or form. He doesn't believe in God. If he did believe in the all-powerful Creatior God of the Bible, he should have no problem with the Virgin birth, or the feeding of the five thousand. If God was the one who created life itself and the laws of science, surely he is capable of stepping in and performing miracles? If God cannot perform miracles, he is not God. He is limited in his abilities.

The Bible tells us very clearly that when Jesus ascended, a cloud obscured Him from the sight of his watching disciples. Is God not powerful enough to take Jesus straight to Heaven? Is the all-powerful God limited by the very laws He created?? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that Jesus had to travel through the atmosphere and through the vastness of space to get to Heaven. He is not limited like us. The Bible tells us that after His resurrection, Jesus could disappear from one place and reappear somewhere else. It tells us that He could walk through walls. God is not limited by our world.

He asked where in the Bible does it say that we are all sinners and have fallen? He was implying that Genesis is the only book that mentions original sin. Has he never read Romans 3:23?? Has he never read Romans 5:8??

I cannot begin to describe how warped and misunderstood his view of the message of the Bible is. He is taking the warped traditions of the church and treating them like they are taken from the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it command us to pray on our knees. It is simply something we do to show humility and thankfulness to our Creator God, Jesus Christ, for His incredible love. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to baptise babies. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that baptism cleanses us from sin. Baptism was never meant as an act of literal cleansing from sin - it was simply introduced as a symbol of our forgiveness from God. It is a picture of the change that happens in our souls when we are forgiven.

He also clearly doesn't understand that Jesus is God. And that God Himself died for our sins. He clearly doesn't understand what we call the trinity. He clearly doesn't understand that Jesus came and died for us willingly. That God the Father did not force Him - He chose to come and die. He has clearly never read Philippians chapter 2.

This man clearly doesn't understand the concept of justice. He asks why can't God simply forgive everyone? He clearly hasn't realised yet that that is exactly what God is offering. But at the same time there has to be justice. Someone has to take the consequences that our sin deserves. Jesus is offering to take it for us. Christ willingly came to take the punishment that you and I deserve for our sins so that justice could be satisfied and we could still be forgiven.

This man will get an unpleasant surprise when he dies if he continues to warp God's message of love and salvation. Right now, Satan is using him to lead many people astray from the simple truth of the gospel.

I ejaculate every time I look in a mirror.

It takes a really heartless, hateful individual to believe that people who say Jesus preached a message of love deserves an eternal pitchfork in the ass. It's about blood and oppression and torture boys.

It's ok though, my mother got offended and stopped the video in the first two minutes when he suggested that we should not use the Bible to justify slavery. You might have a soul mate in this world.

It takes a really heartless, hateful individual to believe that people who say Jesus preached a message of love deserves an eternal pitchfork in the ass. It's about blood and oppression and torture boys.

It's ok though, my mother got offended and stopped the video in the first two minutes when he suggested that we should not use the Bible to justify slavery. You might have a soul mate in this world.

Jesus did preach a message of love and truth. The truth that He taught is love. When a Christian tells you about hell, he is being loving because he is warning people about the danger that they are in. God's love does not want anyone to go there and provided a way out. His justice demands that sinners do go there. The choice is up to each individual if they are going to accept God's pardon for their sins or if they are going to pay for their sins their self by going to hell.

Gods above and beyond, this discussion is still going on ?!

the amazement never ceases.

Also, no. Jesus is not God. he is God's emissary, and the simple fact he relates to god by the word "father" means he isn't god. Also, if I take your logic, and twist it like I twist my spaghettis, if god is dead...who are you worshipping ? :eye:

also, food for thoughts:

Let's admit for the sake of demonstration, that God created everything, everywhere. by this exact logic, God has created Satan. hence, it can be argued He has created everything evil in the universe. hence: God is evil. it's twisted, but it works. religions are prone to paradoxes, especially when they get too dogmatic for their own good. a thing the ancient greeks and egyptians, in their own ways, had understood.

If you want my real opinion, it is simple: God. has. given. up.

He is probably in the comfiest chair he could find, looking at us, either laughing hysterically at our antics, either crying in shame at the stupidity and fanaticism most seem to exhibit, or he has just decided we were a failed experiment. One fun to make, but doomed to failure from day one. because we can't even agree on the simplest, most basic thing: that we cannot agree on everything. Religions are made by men. religious dogma, especially in religions originating from the middle east are entirely made by men. men that lived in time with norms and values so different we have trouble to even think of them. it is more visible with Islam, but it is also the case of the christian faith.

The scriptures, as we know them have been a fixture (more of less) since the high middle ages, but with a lot of variations due to the mode of reproduction of writings (every bible until gutenberg was a handwritten copy, with all the mistakes and modifications that can imply). If we were to ever find an intact, 2nd century After Christ bible, and compare it with an 8th century one, it would probably have much less in common than we might be told to believe. And if we take the apocrypha into account, it can change the perception of whole parts of biblic history. Judas' gospel is a pretty damn good example.

there. I've had a few good laughs with this thread, but a lot more facepalming. at the end of the day, as an old priest once told me, the ONLY things that matter, is whether you believe in God and, more importantly if that belief brings you if only a tiny measure of hope and/or happiness. if the answer to the latter is "no" then his advice was "don't bother with the first, then".

Also, Shad, sorry, but I have to say it: your mother is a cunt. my condolences about your grandma.

Man! Some people here are so far off base and arguing in areas that had been put to rest by many who've come to finely understand the Scripture and it's Prophecies, including proving the People and Places in the Scripture existed, with artifacts and writings outside the Scripture that supports the History. Jesus IS God in the form of a Man, and is Micheal the Angel, He who is as God and is God. Lucifer is the the part of free will gone bad, and is the example of what will come to past while we still have free will but without the Sin. Like I've mentioned already, the Prophecies in Revelation have come true and are nearing the end. I don't have just Faith, but facts that it will end the way God foreseen it would, defeating the Evil that twisted his creation. Jesus spoke not of Hell but of death and the consequences of not fallowing Him. God has been trying to show us the way while many argue petty differences stemming from misinformation including corrupt new text Bibles. I know who the people are that started changing and creating corrupt versions of the Bible especially the Dewey (Jesuit) Bible. A few have put 2 and 2 together and see exactly what's happening, and are prepared, many are not, but it's not because God didn't show us or give us a chance. God didn't create Evil, but He will end it. That's what the plan for Restoration of His Creation and the main point of the Prophecies are all about. I pray everyday for my fellow man to find the truth, the light and the way to eternal existence with no more Wars, destruction, greed, envy, jealousy, pride that is the dark side of free will. God gave man a chance and He brought sinl upon himself, and God knew He would, that's what's being worked out right now, and sad to say only so many will find the way to His restoring everything the way it was meant to be. God knew from the beginning that, that would have to be worked out, and Lucifer has been trying to stop it all along, but God's been several steps ahead of Him the whole time. Once Christ died on the Cross Lucifer knew the gig was up, now He's just trying to take as many down with Him as He can.

Gods above and beyond, this discussion is still going on ?!

I hope you're enjoying contributing to it's continued existence.


Also, no. Jesus is not God. he is God's emissary, and the simple fact he relates to god by the word "father" means he isn't god.

You are clearly not familiar with the trinity. Like water, ice, and steam are all the same substance, God is three in one. Father, Son, and Spirit. Jesus claimed to be God numerous times. Here are just a couple of examples:

Exodus 3:13-15
Then Moses said to God, �Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, �The God of your fathers has sent me to you,� and they say to me, �What is His name?� what shall I say to them?� And God said to Moses, �I AM WHO I AM.� And He said, �Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, �I AM has sent me to you.�� Moreover God said to Moses, �Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: �The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.�

John 8:56-59
Jesus said "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.� Then the Jews said to Him, �You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?� Jesus said to them, �Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.� Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Why did the Jews try to stone Him to death? Because He was claiming to be God Himself.


John 10:30-33
Jesus said "I and My Father are one.� Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, �Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?� The Jews answered Him, saying, �For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.�

Why did they try to stone Him? They said why themselves. Because He was claiming to be God.


John 19:7
The Jews answered him [Pilate], �We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.�



Also, if I take your logic, and twist it like I twist my spaghettis, if god is dead...who are you worshipping ? :eye:

Pardon me, but have you never heard that Jesus rose from the dead?


Let's admit for the sake of demonstration, that God created everything, everywhere. by this exact logic, God has created Satan. hence, it can be argued He has created everything evil in the universe. hence: God is evil. it's twisted, but it works. religions are prone to paradoxes, especially when they get too dogmatic for their own good. a thing the ancient greeks and egyptians, in their own ways, had understood.

Yes, God created Satan. He created him with free will, just like He created us. And just like us, Satan abused that free will and chose to rebel. God did not create evil - He gave us free will and we chose to do wrong.

Some food for thought for you: "Evil" should not even be a noun, because it is not a substance. It is an adjective. And it describes the opposite choice to the option that we call "good". Therefore, evil cannot be created or destroyed. It doesn't exist. Evil actions exist. And those wrong actions are what we and Satan chose.


Religions are made by men. religious dogma are entirely made by men.

I couldn't agree more. That is why what the Bible teaches is so different. It is not about a religion, but a relationship with our Father God. "Christianity" (I don't like using that term, as it makes it sound like a religion) is unique in that it tells us that we can never be good enough for God. All other religions (including Catholicism, the Mormons, the JW's etc.) teach that mankind has to strive to be good enough for God. What Jesus taught was that we have to simply come to God as we are and ask His forgiveness on behalf of Christ paying our fine. Because Christ paid our fine, God can legally dismiss our case.


The scriptures, as we know them have been a fixture (more of less) since the high middle ages, but with a lot of variations due to the mode of reproduction of writings (every bible until gutenberg was a handwritten copy, with all the mistakes and modifications that can imply). If we were to ever find an intact, 2nd century After Christ bible, and compare it with an 8th century one, it would probably have much less in common than we might be told to believe.

I challenge you to name me one mistake/modification in the Bible. If they are so common, you should be able to come up with one fairly easily. It is such a common claim, but it is entirely empty. There are no mistakes/contradictions in the Bible.


...as an old priest once told me, the ONLY things that matter, is whether you believe in God and, more importantly if that belief brings you if only a tiny measure of hope and/or happiness. if the answer to the latter is "no" then his advice was "don't bother with the first, then".

If you are just looking for happiness, and not God, then you will never find it. I know God personally through Jesus Christ, and although I enjoy the love and peace and purpose He gives me, life is not always happy. Jesus promised that His followers would have trouble in the world. He predicted that they would be killed for their faith. But it's not this life that matters anymore. It's what we do in this life that has eternal consequences that matters. And that's sharing the good news of Christ's substitutional death for anyone who asks forgiveness. It is not God's will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Reason 5871 why I hate evangelical protestant cunts like xfrodobagginsx:

So my grandmother (dad's side) was a pretty devout Catholic and one of the most genuinely good people I've ever met. My mother is an evangelical protestant. In the 30 years I've walked this earth I have never heard her say a good thing about my grandma, and she took every chance she could find to remind my dad and I that Catholics go to hell. (Her idea of hell is, of course, fire, brimstone, eternal torture, pitchforks in the ass, all that great stuff that Bible thumpers get off to.) Grandma died yesterday with the whole family around. A priest read her her last rites, and then my "mother" nudged everyone out of the way and shit all over her with some spiel about it not being too late to accept Jesus into her heart and go to heaven. She then made some comment like "well, her chest isn't rising much, she's probably dead now" and walked out of the room with a big grin on her face because she just scored brownie points with Jesus and got a story to brag to her church friends about.

The vast majority of the really terrible, hateful people I have met in this world have been evangelical Christians. Here was another fine example.


Wow. Put her on your ignore list.

I think you should be comparing to Christ, not people. A Christian should be as Christ. I'm not a Mary worshiper, and don't believe in it, it is not Christian. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I don't believe in paying the Church so that I may sin. If you don't believe me I'll provide documentation on the subject.

What do you place your beliefs upon?

What do you place your beliefs upon?

Science. Math. Logic.

Science. Maths. Logic.

Science. Maths. Logic.

Well played, sir, well played. I must admit to being an American myself, but if the metric system is any indication, the European way is quite superior. I always try to write "colour" instead of "color" as I think it gives my words an air of sophistication that accurately reflects my truly cultured and mature demeanor, for example, and helps to keep those who are not so... shall we say, developed... on their toes!

Well played, sir, well played. I must admit to being an American myself, but if the metric system is any indication, the European way is quite superior. I always try to write "colour" instead of "color" as I think it gives my words an air of sophistication that accurately reflects my truly cultured and mature demeanor, for example, and helps to keep those who are not so... shall we say, developed... on their toes!

For goodness' sake, HeadphonesGirl. Just because I'm British and have learned how to speak and write correctly doesn't mean you have to poke fun at me. Unless, of course, you're feeling ashamed at your own lack of "sophistication". But I don't know you in real life, so I won't make assumptions.

But I don't know you in real life, so I won't make assumptions.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh my sides....

Don't bother Sulley, just ignore this sad, sad Troll.

At the last Forum i was active, if you made a fake account to harrass and troll other members, all your accounts got
permabanned so fast it made your head spin.

Maybe the General Discussion Moderator on here will take action sometime. Oh wait, he hasn't been active in over 2 years...

I believe Jessie has powers here.

Meh. Lighten up and take things "in stride", having a semblance of Don't really care attitude wouldn't hurt. I've mainly lurked General Discussion back in the ol' days, but damn, I recall folks that sadly have left the shrine quite some time ago who used to poke fun at each other, and they merely shared a few laughs.

Don't act like you always have a stick stuck between your butt-cheeks and don't take crap so seriously. It's the Internet, after all. This part of the forum used to be a lot funnier, what a shame.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA HAHAHAHA

Oh my sides....

Glad to have clearly made your day. I hope your sides recover quickly.

---------- Post added at 09:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 AM ----------


Don't bother Sulley, just ignore this sad, sad Troll.

I normally ignore people trolling. Not sure why I bothered responding really. But the fact that HeadphonesGirl set that account up for the sole purpose of taking the mick out of me does annoy just a little.

I think it gives my words an air of sophistication !

and you would be wrong. its a grammatical nightmare.
but the metric system is superior. precision above all things.
meanwhile, in that other, shitty system, i always have to calculate what the flying fuck is the measurement when they said X pounds X miles, etc etc.

same with godly celsius, vs shit eating farenheit.

For goodness' sake, HeadphonesGirl. Just because I'm British and have learned how to speak and write correctly doesn't mean you have to poke fun at me. Unless, of course, you're feeling ashamed at your own lack of "sophistication". But I don't know you in real life, so I won't make assumptions.

If you think I'm poking fun at you for being English or for writing "correctly" your reading comprehension needs work. I'm poking fun at you for being a snobby, stuffy little shit.

Americans don't write 'maths,' they write 'math.' It is correct here. But even if it wasn't, what is your goal here? To give the impression you walk around with a pair of spectacles hanging down to the tip of your nose and wear your trousers above your belly button? Man, you've gotta understand, I have no power against temptation of this level. It's like you're begging me to mock you. The old FFS would have had a field day with you. I wish it was 2010.

By the way, it's "for goodness's sake." You only omit the last s if it's to indicate a plural possessive, not for any word that begins with an s.

Using Metric system: speed = kilometers � time.

English system: speed = furlongs � fortnights.

Americans don't write 'maths,' they write 'math.' It is correct here. But even if it wasn't, what is your goal here?

*sigh*

Someone here is taking this all a little too seriously. My goal? A little bit of humour, that was all. It was said tongue-in-cheek because those members who know me here know that I'm from the UK. Killgrave (at whom the comment was directed in the first place) can easily vouch for that. He knew it was just a little bit of fun.


By the way, it's "for goodness's sake." You only omit the last s if it's to indicate a plural possessive, not for any word that begins with an s.

I'm sorry, but no, it's not. How I wrote it was the correct way. It is one of the exceptions to the rule - you do not need to add an "s" after the apostrophe if it is not pronounced.

I'm poking fun at you for being a snobby, stuffy little shit.

Okay, on the ignore list you and your other ridiculous mock account go. There, much better.

Have fun being an obnoxious little pissant.

I'm sorry, but no, it's not. How I wrote it was the correct way. It is one of the exceptions to the rule - you do not need to add an "s" after the apostrophe if it is not pronounced.

This is correct. ^

What do you place your beliefs upon?

Experience, Gods Handwriting in all creation, Logic, Science. I've seen God reveal Himself to me in many ways. There are people who see, and people that don't, and most are brainwashed into not even looking. I was fortunate enough that God first hand showed me what I needed. I was a staunch Evolutionist for decades. I've looked at things scientifically like the Fossil Record, how biology, time and space works. And I've looked to the Scripture for not just Gods teachings, but for Prophecy, which has almost totally been fulfilled. I not only resent people assuming that I believe in fairy tales, when that couldn't be further from the truth. When Christ said watch for these things and you'll know the end is near, I believe that, because everything else has been fulfilled. I've watched people who claim they believe evolution because of what science teaches, but those teachings are by people who said that they can't believe in God, even if the facts point to that because it would go against the spirit of science. That is proof that they have faith in something whether proven or not. So you go right on with your faith in something that the proof shows otherwise. To believe that a being created everything is no more ludicrous than a belief that everything came from nothing, that you evolved from a rock, that if there is a God he must be evil, when it's man who i is evil. Stop blaming others and start looking if you want to know the truth, because it's there. The Bible is 100 Books written by at least 60 authors and has a message by God that he does care, and is trying to show you the way out of this evil existence that WE, Man has brought upon himself by ignoring his warnings. So when the shit hits the fan, don't claim you didn't have a chance to know the truth, or blame someone, or God because they must be evil, when it is ALL of us who are full of sin. You choose your own path, God does not force you, he cares to much for you to force anything, it's not in his character. So you choose your own path, and don't blame your decision on anyone or anything else, because the truth is right in front of you.

:this:

Good to know it's not just me. :)

A lot of that is encompassed in my 9,000+ word dissertation that I am finalising at the moment.

*sigh*

Someone here is taking this all a little too seriously. My goal? A little bit of humour, that was all. It was said tongue-in-cheek because those members who know me here know that I'm from the UK. Killgrave (at whom the comment was directed in the first place) can easily vouch for that. He knew it was just a little bit of fun.

Well make up your mind, man. Do you want me to not to take things seriously or to grow up and get serious? Everything I do here is most purely in the name of fun, but you only seem to approve of fun with its pinkie extended.


I'm sorry, but no, it's not. How I wrote it was the correct way. It is one of the exceptions to the rule - you do not need to add an "s" after the apostrophe if it is not pronounced.

Ooh, can I do a condescending sigh now? *siioiggghhh*

I see what you get out of that.

There is no "correct" way. It's disputed/inconsistent and style guides will generally tell you to go either way. That�s the joke. See what I did there?

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------


Okay, on the ignore list you and your other ridiculous mock account go. There, much better.

Have fun being an obnoxious little pissant.

Wait, no! I had fun in the dear josh thread. I know I was a little rough on you with that whole clever bard thing but I thought you were into that. You just need time to warm up to me. I'm a grower <3

Experience, Gods Handwriting in all creation, Logic, Science. I've seen God reveal Himself to me in many ways... I was fortunate enough that God first hand showed me what I needed... I've looked to the Scripture for not just Gods teachings, but for Prophecy, which has almost totally been fulfilled... When Christ said watch for these things and you'll know the end is near, I believe that, because everything else has been fulfilled... The Bible has a message by God that he does care, and is trying to show you the way out of this evil existence that WE, Man has brought upon himself by ignoring his warnings... when it is ALL of us who are full of sin... God does not force you, he cares to much... it's not in his character.

Sheesh. I'm amazed you managed to write that. Not a comment on content, but style- just so you know, there are ways to make indoctrination sound less intimidating. Totes serious, I swear the charge read after my masonic initiation ritual had less sinister undertones.

That's what I just said, ya goof.

Reading comprehension.

Sheesh. I'm amazed you managed to write that. Not a comment on content, but style- just so you know, there are ways to make indoctrination sound less intimidating. Totes serious, I swear the charge read after my masonic initiation ritual had less sinister undertones.

My main point being the information is there, you just need to want to see it, and actually go look. I wasn't trying to be mean, pushy, sinister. I've made my case in earlier posts to get people interested in the truth, it's out there. I keep getting this brick wall mentality and not a real search for the truth. More of a "where the heck are you coming from"? of statements, rather than an "ok, I'm going to check out what you're saying". I'm also seeing some that do believe, but choose the dark side. I'm all set, are you?

My main point being the information is there, you just need to want to see it, and actually go look. I wasn't trying to be mean, pushy, sinister. I've made my case in earlier posts to get people interested in the truth, it's out there. I keep getting this brick wall mentality and not a real search for the truth. More of a "where the heck are you coming from"? of statements, rather than an "ok, I'm going to check out what you're saying". I'm also seeing some that do believe, but choose the dark side. I'm all set, are you?

See... regardless of the historical plagiarism your beliefs must thank for their existence, let alone the vaguery that is to demand anybody "to believe" - an expression which alone invites a crescendo of questions with no definite answer: how? in what? in which translation? of which interpretation? why?, for the empty belief is delusion - when you start talking about "the dark side", that's when you openly invite derision. Come on... at least JP strives to sound intelligent when refuting science, though an eloquent lip is not fitting for a fool, much less do lying lips a noble (ya dish it? ya take it ;) ) but I appreciate how he doesn't just rely on the ominous gimmick of the sinned soul's damnation. Conditioning doesn't work well on humans, far less when you don't have interesting treats.

I wasn't commenting on content especially because I recently mentioned I was an atheist (philosophically) pantheistically inclined and that won't change, no matter how genuinely passionate you may be in your pontification. I have a right to disagree with what other people believe and viceversa. I have a right to think other people are half-wits and viceversa. I have a right to pity or ignore people who don't see it as I do and viceversa. I do a bit of all of the above. If you must know I stopped believing when I was a child. I realized that if the Church's way of celebrating the so-called "miracle of ascension" of a person I deeply loved is simply with boorish, tactless, meandering chants amelodically hailing an historically absent demi-god's name, while the person whose death you're suffering, lying sealed in a coffin at arm's reach from your seat, is relegated to being a mere afterthought for the sake of a meticulously tried and tested and perfected placeholder formula, their name only to be exhumed now and again in even more repetitive and self-consumed liturgies - well, surely it must all be bullshit because oh what unique way of fulfilling the promised glory of spirit that is, right? The people who could've convinced me failed. You're not going to do that for me, or anybody else, from just behind a keyboard mentioning brick mentalities and the perennial search for truth, generalizing each and every one of our own spiritual journeys. Shut up and wake up (or live and let live, same thing).

See... regardless of the historical plagiarism your beliefs must thank for their existence, let alone the vaguery that is to demand anybody "to believe" - an expression which alone invites a crescendo of questions with no definite answer: how? in what? in which translation? of which interpretation? why?, for the empty belief is delusion - when you start talking about "the dark side", that's when you openly invite derision. Come on... at least JP strives to sound intelligent when refuting science, though an eloquent lip is not fitting for a fool, much less do lying lips a noble (ya dish it? ya take it ;) ) but I appreciate how he doesn't just rely on the ominous gimmick of the sinned soul's damnation. Conditioning doesn't work well on humans, far less when you don't have interesting treats.

I wasn't commenting on content especially because I recently mentioned I was an atheist (philosophically) pantheistically inclined and that won't change, no matter how genuinely passionate you may be in your pontification. I have a right to disagree with what other people believe and viceversa. I have a right to think other people are half-wits and viceversa. I have a right to pity or ignore people who don't see it as I do and viceversa. I do a bit of all of the above. If you must know I stopped believing when I was a child. I realized that if the Church's way of celebrating the so-called "miracle of ascension" of a person I deeply loved is simply with boorish, tactless, meandering chants amelodically hailing an historically absent demi-god's name, while the person whose death you're suffering, lying sealed in a coffin at arm's reach from your seat, is relegated to being a mere afterthought for the sake of a meticulously tried and tested and perfected placeholder formula, their name only to be exhumed now and again in even more repetitive and self-consumed liturgies - well, surely it must all be bullshit because oh what unique way of fulfilling the promised glory of spirit that is, right? The people who could've convinced me failed. You're not going to do that for me, or anybody else, from just behind a keyboard mentioning brick mentalities and the perennial search for truth, generalizing each and every one of our own spiritual journeys. Shut up and wake up (or live and let live, same thing).

OK, so like I said, the info you need is out there. I can only gather you didn't read any of my earlier suggestions based on science. I've done more then my share here. Like I said, it up to you now. It's not up to me to convince anyone. That's between you and God.

God is super dick. I'll take my chances with Satan.

God is super dick. I'll take my chances with Satan.

For your own safety, Shad, it's worth making the effort to look into who the God of the Bible really is. He is not like you think He is.

But why should you listen to me? I guess you won't.

For your own safety, Shad, it's worth making the effort to look into who the God of the Bible really is. He is not like you think He is.

But why should you listen to me? I guess you won't.

An eternity deprived of anything remotely satisfying in life, forced to stand and sing in a choir with the likes of Sully leering down from the director's stand. It sounds like Clockwork Orange treatment.

An eternity deprived of anything remotely satisfying in life, forced to stand and sing in a choir with the likes of Sully leering down from the director's stand. It sounds like Clockwork Orange treatment.

Shad, please don't take offense, but you have a completely misguided view of both God and Heaven. Shallow, empty, hypocritical man-made religion (like the Church of England, Mormonism, JW's, Catholicism, etc.) has completely put you off ever looking into the possibility of the truth of the Bible, and that's exactly what Satan wants. He is happy that the truth of Jesus has been warped into something that is a complete mess and is turning people away from knowing the truth.

Please, read for yourself what Jesus said about the church and what the early church was like. It was never meant to be a "religion" - that's what man has turned it into, with unscriptural rituals, doctrines, prayers, guilt-trips, purgatory, paying priests for forgiveness, infant baptism "into the body of Christ", etc. NONE of that is part of the true church.

What'd you have to say about the Inquisition, Mister Sulley?

Or the horrible things the Church did in the past?

They did put fear over the people, fear of God, so they could reign over them and get a lots of benefits.

And also did accusate anyone who didn't think like them or who proved them wrong.

Would Jesus have done any of those things?

Not at all. They were very wrong, and I don't agree with any kind of forcing of religion on anyone, especially not for personal gain. Jesus didn't force people to listen to Him or do as He said. He simply taught them the truth and left them to decide for themselves what they were going to do with it.

I Don't Tend to Get Involved In The Talks (Don't Belive but Anyway) Not Once Have I Seen Sulley "Enforce" His Religion On Anyone. He Has An Opinion Like Everyone Else, If I Am Honest For Someone Who Has A Strong Relgious Beleif He Is Also Very Open to Everyone's Else's Opinion Or State. (If You Get My Meaning)


I Won't Post Again Here, But I Had to Say This. Sulley Is A Strong Believer Yes, But No Preacher.

Well, glad to hear some kind of sense. There have been many lies and the use of religion, over history, to use people. And that's good that you don't wanna force your religion, but you, deliberately sometimes with your words, and I wanna believe you don't mean it, that you're just saying your belief, you make it sound like if the people who don't believe in your religion are in the wrong, and are oh so many pitiful souls.

If I believed that Jesus spoke the truth when He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.", but yet I also believed that anyone who doesn't believe in Christ is not wrong, would that make any sense whatsoever??

By very definition, if you believe something to be the truth, you also believe that any other alternative is not the truth and is therefore wrong. It would be utterly illogical for me to believe in God at the same time as believing that atheists are right in saying that there is no God, Satan, Heaven, or Hell.

By very definition, if you believe something to be the truth, you also believe that any other alternative is not the truth and is therefore wrong.

I will never understand that logic.

There are always several dimensions of truth. There is the truth you do not see, there is the truth I do not see, and the truth we both do not see, to say the least. one thing being true does never make everything else a lie or false. It just makes this one thing true. And there are others truths to be found.
I will never get this black and white logic. sorry.


If I say fish is healthy I am not saying meat is not. Both can be healthy.

If I say fish is healthy I am not saying meat is not. Both can be healthy.

Obviously that analogy works, but it's completely different in this case. Either God exists or He doesn't. Either we are created by God, or we're not. You cannot have both!

Sully, no disrespect.

But, who says I cannot?
For many theories there are proofs, and at the same time you can find proof for another theory different from the first one too.

Sometimes we are right and wrong at the same time.
Sometimes that is because at that time we do not have means to put things more adequately.

That is why it was sound logic back in the days for people to say: logic dictates the the earth cannot be round because the people on the other half would fall off it.
For those people that was understandable, sound logic.

It still does not need to be so, as we know now.

Sully, no disrespect.

But, who says I cannot?
For many theories there are proofs, and at the same time you can find proof for another theory different from the first one too.

Sometimes we are right and wrong at the same time.
Sometimes that is because at that time we do not have means to put things more adequately.

That is why it was sound logic back in the days for people to say: logic dictates the the earth cannot be round because the people on the other half would fall off it.
For those people that was understandable, sound logic.

It still does not need to be so, as we know now.

Again, that analogy is fine for some things we don't yet understand, but it cannot fit this scenario - either a God of some kind exists or He doesn't. He cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Can He?

I would not rule that possibility out.
:)

And thx for posting the "can he", much appreciated.
Sorei out again....

God is super dick. I'll take my chances with Satan.

Jokes aside, LaVeyan Satanism is actually a rather positive, healthy and introspective religion. Satan is adopted as a mere symbol; he holds no material or theistic value.
Basically religion on whatever drugs Tony Robbins is taking - very focused on the self, and improvement and betterment of the earthly existence. Nowhere near as nihilistic as many are lead to believe.


I can only gather you didn't read any of my earlier suggestions based on science.

You're absolutely right. I don't really care. I don't look at past pages because then this would become a thread I seriously participate in. I occasionally drop by and opine on whatever re-run debate is taking place. This is a very repetitive thread.

Sully, no disrespect.

But, who says I cannot?

You can believe whatever you want, but if you choose to believe that god exists and doesn't exist you may as well believe anything since the statements negate each other. What you are probably trying to get at is not really that both are true but that meanings are flexible. Einstein didn't believe in the god that Mr. Sullivan believes in, for example, but it's quite arguable he seemed to believe in a god. So if you wished to you could say that god1 exists and god2 doesn't exist and avoid the contradiction, you'd just have to go through the steps of clarifying which is Einstein's and which is Sullivan's in order to be saying something meaningful.

You are also perhaps trying to evoke the philosophy that religions are all different paths up the same mountain (and maybe even that atheism is one of those paths too.) You wouldn't really be claiming that contradictory arguments are both correct, though, you'd just be arguing that both contain some true statements and neither contain all true statements. Theoretically both conclusions would be flawed but not without their uses.

There is, of course, no religious believer in the world who has all true statements, and if one tells you they do that's how you know to avoid discussing anything with them.

You can believe whatever you want, but if you choose to believe that god exists and doesn't exist you may as well believe anything since the statements negate each other. What you are probably trying to get at is not really that both are true but that meanings are flexible. Einstein didn't believe in the god that Mr. Sullivan believes in, for example, but it's quite arguable he seemed to believe in a god. So if you wished to you could say that god1 exists and god2 doesn't exist and avoid the contradiction, you'd just have to go through the steps of clarifying which is Einstein's and which is Sullivan's in order to be saying something meaningful.

You are also perhaps trying to evoke the philosophy that religions are all different paths up the same mountain (and maybe even that atheism is one of those paths too.) You wouldn't really be claiming that contradictory arguments are both correct, though, you'd just be arguing that both contain some true statements and neither contain all true statements. Theoretically both conclusions would be flawed but not without their uses.

There is, of course, no religious believer in the world who has all true statements, and if one tells you they do that's how you know to avoid discussing anything with them.

I would like to know what I've said that isn't true. Not trying to start anything, but would just like to know what untrue statements I've made.

I would like to know what I've said that isn't true. Not trying to start anything, but would just like to know what untrue statements I've made.

I don't know, I haven't read most of this thread. You may not have said any. I didn't say you did.

To be honest, I am agnostic towards the whole idea and concept of religion. I'm open to it,
but am far from being convinced by it..

What is it that is keeping you from Accepting Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation?

What is it that is keeping you from Accepting Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation?

1: There is no such thing as free. Somehow, somewhere, somewhen you will pay. (BTW, free gift is a redundancy. A gift by its very definition is free.)

2: Always look a free gift horse in the mouth. (Check its hooves as well for infection.)

3: Gift, in German, means poison. I'm not accepting poison as a gift, even if it's free.

What is it that is keeping you from Accepting Jesus Christ's free gift of salvation?

I've already got one!

I would have to say no, because I do not believe in any of that fairy tale stuff. I understand believing on faith alone, but as an atheist, I need proof before I buy into any of that. That is the difference between science and faith.

I am a Christian, but not one of those bullshits who say they are Christian and just go to church and don't really believe and or place their faith in God. But me? I do place my faith in Jesus Christ, believe there is Heaven and Hell, both of which he created, for if you believe there is a God and accept Jesus into your life: you go to Heaven, if you don't: you go to Hell (this is NOT an insult directed towards anyone), there is no in between. I believe in God based on proof: as when I've been in church, I've felt his spirit before: a very strong presence, and as I've seen miracles happen before my eyes and hear about them every day. It's wrong of anyone to force your beliefs of religion on somebody, so I am not doing that. I'm just stating that I do believe in Jesus Christ and believe you go to Heaven when you die if you do. We all have the freedom to believe what we want, so if you're an Atheist, or if you're Agnostic, that's fine. I won't stop you, because that would be stupid.

I am an atheist and I try to respect other people's beliefs.

That's the best thing you can do.

I Try to Respect, But When They Come To Your Door Annoys Me, But As I Say Other Than That I Leave Them Be.

I Try to Respect, But When They Come To Your Door Annoys Me, But As I Say Other Than That I Leave Them Be.

That's what I don't like, it draws the line for me.

I see no need for it, it give a bad rep.

I'm a self-admited hypocrite though, I'd rather admit my flaws rather than act what I am not, I did say I try to respect people's beliefs and most of the time I do that, but you all know how sometimes I have my moments and I may by mistake, by whatever reason, say something mean or witty or stupid about their beliefs of anything, but that's just my common mistake, if I ever do that I always apologize later when I realize it, most of the time I am respectful as long as they don't bother me with it. I like the good kind of religious people. Those who do believe in something, but don't make it their whole life, or annoy people for not believing or doing what the religion tells them to. Basically the bad people. There's people who do believe in something but you barely even know because they aren't constantly talking about it or anything.

Okay.

I'm a self-admited hypocrite though, I'd rather admit my flaws rather than act what I am not, I did say I try to respect people's beliefs and most of the time I do that, but you all know how sometimes I have my moments and I may by mistake, by whatever reason, say something mean or witty or stupid about their beliefs of anything, but that's just my common mistake, if I ever do that I always apologize later when I realize it, most of the time I am respectful as long as they don't bother me with it. I like the good kind of religious people. Those who do believe in something, but don't make it their whole life, or annoy people for not believing or doing what the religion tells them to. Basically the bad people. There's people who do believe in something but you barely even know because they aren't constantly talking about it or anything.

I agree. I believe in Jesus but don't make it my whole and it's not all I talk about. That's not what he wants us to anyway.

I truly feel that we are all entitled to opinions. I personally have nothing against organized religion, as long as it is not used to justify killing people (as the past has shown us.) I also have issues with people trying to cram their opinions down my throat (which you are not doing, Clonemaster15. I appreciate that.) As an atheist, I see the proof of evolution and that is enough for me to support Darwin and not faith. I often think it would be nice to believe and have that comfort, but I simply cannot. Proof to me is the deciding factor.

I agree. I believe in Jesus but don't make it my whole and it's not all I talk about. That's not what he wants us to anyway.

If You Had Not Posted Here Today, I Would Never of Known...

There's nothing wrong with having faith and believing in something sometimes.

For some people, it's what pulls them through life.

If You Had Not Posted Here Today, I Would Never of Known...

That I believe in Jesus? Yeah, I guess you wouldn't have known.

That I believe in Jesus? Yeah, I guess you wouldn't have known.

Yes.

I like the good kind of religious people. Those who do believe in something, but don't make it their whole life
I kinda get what you're saying, but I've always had a lot of respect for nuns and monks and people like that who do make their religion their whole life. I'm curious -- what's your opinion of such people?

I kinda get what you're saying, but I've always had a lot of respect for nuns and monks and people like that who do make their religion their whole life. I'm curious -- what's your opinion of such people?

They can do what they want, I am not judging. Just as long as they don't try to change everybody, and constantly shove their religions in everywhere, in every talk with with anybody. You know what I mean.

What if a being is immortal. How would he or she get to heaven if they cannot die?

I'm sure an immortal would find a better way than the opposite to get there. :p

I'm sure an immortal would find a better way than the opposite to get there. :p

If such a place exists, it would be like a mortal trying to break into asgard. How would you try to break into a place that doesn't exist in this dimension? If I were immortal, I think I would like to try to break into heaven, just to see if such a place existed.

What if a being is immortal. How would he or she get to heaven if they cannot die?

I think christian metaphysics would essentially mean this person is already in heaven (or hell) automatically by virtue of being immortal.

I kinda get what you're saying, but I've always had a lot of respect for nuns and monks and people like that who do make their religion their whole life. I'm curious -- what's your opinion of such people?

Well, my experience with the penguins and the priests have taught me they are a humorless and dour lot who take their frustrations out on children and wield their supposed piety like a billy club.

Of course, seeing one's parish priest kiss his girlfriend in public might have biased me.

As for immortals going to Heaven, arguing that point makes about as much sense as wondering if God can make a rock so large he can't lift it.

Pointless.

---------- Post added at 10:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------


There's nothing wrong with having faith and believing in something sometimes.

For some people, it's what pulls them through life.

Surveys have shown, for women, having faith adds years to your life.

Men, not so much.