PDA

View Full Version : I hate politics



For Real
11-02-2010, 08:49 PM
I hate politics.

I am bored tonight.

Mods, feel free to delete this thread.

:p

For Real
11-02-2010, 08:56 PM
HOWEVER...

I am so very glad and thankful that a certain governor for a certain state is returning to office... yay! :)

Other than that,

I still hate politics.

Thank you, and Have a Good Day! :D:p

Outerspaceman21
11-02-2010, 09:09 PM
HOWEVER...

I am so very glad and thankful that a certain governor for a certain state is returning to office... yay! :)

Other than that,

I still hate politics.

Thank you, and Have a Good Day! :D:p

Yeah, I'm a supporter as well. Glad the reign of Schwarzenegger is almost over.

Little_Miss_1565
11-02-2010, 10:09 PM
California! Über alles! Califooornia üüüüüüü-ber alles!

Harleyquiiinn
11-03-2010, 03:17 AM
Yeah, I'm a supporter as well. Glad the reign of Schwarzenegger is almost over.


Come on ! that guy saved the whole world at least 3 times !

"You voted me out ? Big mistake."

:D

For Real
11-03-2010, 05:55 AM
Oh I wasn't really talking about California... :p

Little_Miss_1565
11-03-2010, 06:57 AM
Oh I wasn't really talking about California... :p

Except for the part where you were? ...


HOWEVER...

I am so very glad and thankful that a certain governor for a certain state is returning to office... yay! :)

Other than that,

I still hate politics.

Thank you, and Have a Good Day! :D:p

wheelchairman
11-03-2010, 08:26 AM
I'm not really a fan of politics myself, but I'm wondering how you can hate something you don't know much about.

ad8
11-03-2010, 11:32 AM
I'm not really a fan of politics myself, but I'm wondering how you can hate something you don't know much about.

Isn't it like this in most cases of hate?

Did Hitler know much about the Jews?
Do people know much about Justin Bieber?
Do republicans know much about publicly funded health care?

Harleyquiiinn
11-03-2010, 12:49 PM
Isn't it like this in most cases of hate?

Did Hitler know much about the Jews?
Do people know much about Justin Bieber?
Do republicans know much about publicly funded health care?

These are wise words.

For Real
11-03-2010, 07:06 PM
Isn't it like this in most cases of hate?

Did Hitler know much about the Jews?
Do people know much about Justin Bieber?
Do republicans know much about publicly funded health care?

omg, you say oooone little word, and the semantics get all blown out of proportion.

Sheeesh.

People, lighten up. In my case, it's "hate = non-interest" kinda like "I just hate cleaning the kitty litter"

wheelchairman
11-03-2010, 07:24 PM
Ad8, while what you say is true (well except Hitler wrote a lot about Jews, he just subscribed to crazy internet theories, or whatever they used back then.) However more importantly I was trying to make a point about how people shouldn't show off their ignorance. Not some kind of social-science 'law' that was worded perfectly.

For Real
11-04-2010, 09:39 PM
Ad8, while what you say is true (well except Hitler wrote a lot about Jews, he just subscribed to crazy internet theories, or whatever they used back then.) However more importantly I was trying to make a point about how people shouldn't show off their ignorance. Not some kind of social-science 'law' that was worded perfectly.

You know, I'd rather 'show off' ignorance, than a SUPERIORITY COMPLEX out the wazoooo! But whatever. Dude, I am not ignorant, I just don't have any faith in politics/politicians - they promise heaven during campaign time, then FAIL waaay short of delivering. Pure and simple. Besides, the government doesn't have the REAL power. Real power is spiritual. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, because there is no tangible way of showing off a SUPERIORITY "I'M BETTER THAN YOU" COMPLEX. See, one with spiritual powers doesn't feel the need to tear down others in order to build themselves up.

Harleyquiiinn
11-04-2010, 11:34 PM
See, one with spiritual powers doesn't feel the need to tear down others in order to build themselves up.


No, you feel the need to troll to do that.

wheelchairman
11-04-2010, 11:47 PM
You know, I'd rather 'show off' ignorance, than a SUPERIORITY COMPLEX out the wazoooo! But whatever.

[...]

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, because there is no tangible way of showing off a SUPERIORITY "I'M BETTER THAN YOU" COMPLEX. See, one with spiritual powers doesn't feel the need to tear down others in order to build themselves up.


Have you stopped to consider how blatantly hypocritical the stuff you say is?

Anyways I wouldn't call it a superiority complex. I don't feel superior to everyone. I do however feel like I probably am smarter than you. Let me list my reasoning:

1. I enjoy and have made a hobby out of learning more
2. You're an idiot
3. I'm older than you, this doesn't necessarily make one smarter, however in this case I believe it does.
4. If I'm not older than you, I have seriously overestimated you.

Mao Tse-Tung (he's a politician, but don't worry, he wasn't famous for his election promises, or election promises in general, or promises of elections for that matter), he famously said that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. We coul test that with your spirituality power.

Are taxes created by magic? What about roads? The war in Afghanistan?

WebDudette
11-05-2010, 12:44 AM
I hate how often a legitimate desire to know and understand thing and to gain knowledge is mistaken for a superiority complex or smugness.

For Real
11-07-2010, 01:47 AM
Mao Tse-Tung (he's a politician, but don't worry, he wasn't famous for his election promises, or election promises in general, or promises of elections for that matter), he famously said that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. We could test that with your spirituality power.

1. Who is "we"?
2. Is that a a personal threat against me? over the very real and open internet for everyone to see?
3. You would attempt to equate political power with spiritual power? lol And a gun? A physical man-made object?

"No weapon formed against me shall prosper"

A biblical quote - one also used by Pastor John Hagee when fired upon at close range by a lunatic of a man, while delivering a sermon to his congregation at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. The bullets never touched him. The event was as follows:

Some years ago, John Hagee of San Antonio, Texas was preaching from his pulpit at Cornerstone Church. Suddenly, he was faced with an angry man who had a gun. Half-way through his sermon a man came walking down the aisle with a gun in his hand. He stopped within a few short feet of Pastor Hagee's face and unloaded his pistol. However, just before the gunman began to shoot Pastor Hagee said, "No weapon that is formed shall prosper against me." Then the shots rang throughout the sanctuary. The man was apprehended and after things settled down Pastor Hagee continued his message. When services were completed, the police began their crime scene investigation. They found bullet holes in the wall directly behind Pastor Hagee's pulpit. The detectives could not explain how the bullets did not first go through Pastor Hagee's body before lodging in the wall behind him. It had to be that the angels supernaturally re-directed the bullets in such a way that they did not strike him. This story also would be hard to believe if I had not heard the actual service that had been recorded on cassette tape which Pastor Hagee played for a group of ministers in Dallas.

Carry on wayward son.

wheelchairman
11-07-2010, 06:43 AM
1. The hypothetical people reading this
2. A tongue in cheek joke, you heinously stupid person. Jesus christ, a fucking threat? Seriously? The only possible reason you would consider it a threat is if you intended to report it to the authorities, anyone who can read can clearly see that its not. But whatever. Fuck you.
3. Spitirual power is untangible, undefinable, and unquantifiable. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Anyways quoting the bible is nice and all, however I have no intention of getting into a religious discussion with you. I simply don't respect your knowledge of Christianity, so I can't believe that you understand what you are talking about.

As for your story, without a source or a reference I have no real reason to believe it happened as you say it did.


Anyways I'm done with this conversation.

ad8
11-07-2010, 09:25 AM
OMFg! You say oooone little word, and the semantics get all blown out of proportion.

Sheeesh.

People, lighten up. In my case, it's "hate = non-interest" kinda like "I just hate cleaning the kitty litter"
Remember this song? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWn7SuU-8U0)
Ad8, while what you say is true (well except Hitler wrote a lot about Jews, he just subscribed to crazy internet theories, or whatever they used back then.) However more importantly I was trying to make a point about how people shouldn't show off their ignorance. Not some kind of social-science 'law' that was worded perfectly.

Haha, I like what I have evoked with that post. I wasn't trying to respond to you personally; it was rather intended to be another sarcastic remark in addition to yours in order to further emphasize the inaccurate way of arguing that made it difficult to reply to this thread in the first place.

For Real
11-07-2010, 08:05 PM
1. The hypothetical people reading this
2. A tongue in cheek joke, you heinously stupid person. Jesus christ, a fucking threat? Seriously? The only possible reason you would consider it a threat is if you intended to report it to the authorities, anyone who can read can clearly see that its not. But whatever. Fuck you.
3. Spitirual power is untangible, undefinable, and unquantifiable. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Anyways quoting the bible is nice and all, however I have no intention of getting into a religious discussion with you. I simply don't respect your knowledge of Christianity, so I can't believe that you understand what you are talking about.

As for your story, without a source or a reference I have no real reason to believe it happened as you say it did.


Anyways I'm done with this conversation.

1. I don't think the people who read this board appreciate being called 'hypothetical'
2. If that's a joke, then I would hate to see what you do when you're mad at someone :rolleyes:
3. Oh it exists allright

The miracle DID happen. It was a supernatural event - where natural laws are suspended with immense faith. As for a reference, you'd have to contact Trinity Broadcast Network in Costa Mesa, CA, and politely ask for a recording of Tape #1021-92.

wheelchairman
11-07-2010, 08:32 PM
A google search showed nothing? There are no secondary witnesses?

These kinds of things would help my faith in that story.

As for gun power vs. spiritual power. It was simple, all power, political, military, economic, whatever, have little to do with spiritual power.

I believe in the power of spirituality perhaps, but one man in Texas is tiny stuff compared to the military might of the USA for instance. And because of that military power, geo-political power follows.

You want to speak of the power of God (this is what I believe you mean when you talk of spiritual power.) that is fine. God, whether he exists or not, has given hope and peace to countless many. Your miracle however has only one source, some local tv station somewhere. If it were a real miracle, wouldn't it be world news?

So long story short, I was trying to say that spiritual power is nothing, your proof of it is nonexistant, the gun has changed the world in a far more tangible sense.

Not a threat. I wasn't challenging you to a duel or anything. I don't know what kind of bizarre circus world you live in. But every time you open your mouth, I find you dumber and dumber, and this frightens me. What if you had thought I threatened you, what if I lived in the same nation as you, what if you called the police because of your stupid dumbass inability to read. You could've possibly messed my life up. I wasn't angry with you when I wrote about spiritual power vs. force. I was angry with you after you wrote that post where you said I threatened you.

I am a little angry with you right now. No one should be the victim of another's careless stupidity. You're dumb, and I fear you might be highly irresponsible, a dangerous combination. To boot, you seem quite pleased not to fix this.

Static_Martyr
11-08-2010, 02:54 AM
TBN is *not* a trustworthy source anyway; they actually had one episode where they interviewed this doctor, and he said that during a surgery the lights went out and the patient's tumor removed itself.

Complete and utter BS. If that had actually happened it would be worldwide medical news. In short, there's a reason why only religious networks even broadcast such stories....if they really believed this stuff, if they were really confident in it, I don't think they would be trying so hard to prove to everyone else that it's real at any cost (even blatantly lying).

wheelchairman
11-08-2010, 03:36 AM
That or its a matter of interpretation. One man's miracle is another man's mundane set of unusual circumstances, or possibly usual circumstances misunderstood.

Harleyquiiinn
11-08-2010, 05:54 AM
That or its a matter of interpretation. One man's miracle is another man's mundane set of unusual circumstances, or possibly usual circumstances misunderstood.

I can almost imagine you as a 1m55 red hair woman wearing a dress suit right now.

wheelchairman
11-08-2010, 05:57 AM
I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. :p

Sort of sounds like Laura Roslyn...but could you be that nerdy?

Harleyquiiinn
11-08-2010, 06:01 AM
I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. :p

Sort of sounds like Laura Roslyn...but could you be that nerdy?

You're on a good track (sort of... another show that has a fanbase as strong as that one...). And I am that nerdy since 1993, if that helps ;)

wheelchairman
11-08-2010, 06:22 AM
I hope you don't mean Sarah Palin.

Harleyquiiinn
11-08-2010, 06:30 AM
I hope you don't mean Sarah Palin.

You would hate me, wouldn't you ? :D

I meant Dana Scully. That's exactly the type of thing she would say. And that's exactly how she would say it.

Outerspaceman21
11-08-2010, 09:53 AM
You would hate me, wouldn't you ? :D

I meant Dana Scully. That's exactly the type of thing she would say. And that's exactly how she would say it.

And then someone has to come along and say, "The Truth is Out There."

I miss that show. Had one of the best theme songs I ever heard.

Static_Martyr
11-08-2010, 02:28 PM
That or its a matter of interpretation. One man's miracle is another man's mundane set of unusual circumstances, or possibly usual circumstances misunderstood.

True. Of course it should be noted, I was accusing the broadcasting company of lying (not the man himself), because if you're familiar with TBN, they do this sort of thing a lot --- they just take some unverified testimony from some random person and then report it as a factual story without any sort of fact-checking whatsoever. They love to latch onto any little news bit here or there (usually a human interest story) and try to twist it into a supernatural phenomenon.

Keep in mind, this is the station that promises you, "if you donate money to us, God will bless you with earthly and financial rewards." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLxTQ-TDLqg) It's downright shameless at times.

samseby
11-09-2010, 09:41 AM
[...] See, one with spiritual powers doesn't feel the need to tear down others in order to build themselves up.

That's interesting ;) Does this exclude churches / parishioners that do believe only their churches are "proper" churches?
Sorry for maybe being a little provocative here - don't want to tread on anyone's toes.

For Real
11-09-2010, 07:46 PM
A google search showed nothing? There are no secondary witnesses?
I didn't say to do a google search, now did I? I've already done that and didn't find what I was looking for. You, me, or someone will have to contact TBN and get a duplicate of that tape. I suggest it be *me*, because not only do you have a superiority complex, but you also appear to have anger issues, and moreover, are in denial about that, and the wonderful people at TBN wouldn't know what to do with you... well they would probably pray over you, but that might *scare* you.


These kinds of things would help my faith in that story.
Dude, a guy walks into a church with a gun, aims it, and opens fire on the pastor at point blank. Obviously there are witnesses. Why don't you put your smarts to good use and contact the church and/or it's members? I'm sure you'll find all the witnesses you need there.


You want to speak of the power of God (this is what I believe you mean when you talk of spiritual power.) that is fine. God, whether he exists or not, has given hope and peace to countless many. Your miracle however has only one source, some local tv station somewhere. If it were a real miracle, wouldn't it be world news?
You tell me? Your responses here are already tinged with grey disbelief. Why do you think major networks would devote their precious paid-for airtime to something that most networks execs have a hard time believing in the first place? Personally, I do believe Pastor Hagee to be telling the truth. I have no problem with his story.


So long story short, I was trying to say that spiritual power is nothing, your proof of it is nonexistant, the gun has changed the world in a far more tangible sense.
Lots of things have changed the world in far tangible ways, but the spirit is/was/will always be - no changes there. (I don't expect you to understand what I just said, so don't worry with analysis in a logical sense - it cannot be understood with pure mind, but rather, with the heart - I'm sure you have one of these below that thick, tough exterior somewhere. ;))


Not a threat. I wasn't challenging you to a duel or anything. I don't know what kind of bizarre circus world you live in. But every time you open your mouth, I find you dumber and dumber, and this frightens me. What if you had thought I threatened you, what if I lived in the same nation as you, what if you called the police because of your stupid dumbass inability to read.
tsk tsk, I read this just fine, and you are STILL proving my point about YOU having a superiority complex.


You could've possibly messed my life up.
Now THIS is bizarre. :eek:


I wasn't angry with you when I wrote about spiritual power vs. force. I was angry with you after you wrote that post where you said I threatened you.
I 'calls it like I sees it'


I am a little angry with you right now. No one should be the victim of another's careless stupidity. You're dumb, and I fear you might be highly irresponsible, a dangerous combination. To boot, you seem quite pleased not to fix this.
Oh puuuuuuhleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

gawd, I nearly lost my eyes on THAT one. :rolleyes:


```````````

Okay, let me see if I've got this right:

1. You are still tearing me down in order to build yourself up and yet you say you don't have a superiority complex... which leads to #2, then #3
2. You are in DENIAL.
3. You have ANGER issues.
4. You are all logic and no heart
5. **EDIT** (sorry 'bout this one, boy I was sooooooooooo wrong!)
6. Stop playing the victim, when it's clear you are the perpetrator here.
7. I am soooooo glad you live in a different nation than me. Please stay out.

Oh, and since you said that you're done with this conversation several posts back, then I don't expect you to post any more h84real stuff - besides it proves all of my points re profiling you. So now who is dumb, huh?

........

You? yep, YOU. :p

personal_loans_1
11-10-2010, 03:44 AM
__________________

samseby
11-10-2010, 05:06 AM
It's interesting to read though :p

Harleyquiiinn
11-10-2010, 06:38 AM
Okay, let me see if I've got this right:

1. You are still tearing me down in order to build yourself up and yet you say you don't have a superiority complex... which leads to #2, then #3
2. You are in DENIAL.
3. You have ANGER issues.
4. You are all logic and no heart
5. If you've EVER been in love, I'm sure you started out using your mind first, then it blew up in your face, because your heart was never involved to begin with. Am I right? haha
6. Stop playing the victim, when it's clear you are the perpetrator here.
7. I am soooooo glad you live in a different nation than me. Please stay out.

Oh, and since you said that you're done with this conversation several posts back, then I don't expect you to post any more h84real stuff - besides it proves all of my points re profiling you. So now who is dumb, huh?

........

You? yep, YOU. :p

Did you make this in 7 points cause it's the holy number ? Just curious...

Little_Miss_1565
11-10-2010, 06:40 AM
For Real, I think you are out of your element. WCM really isn't attacking you. I get that you're bored and drama is one way of filling a void, but it's completely unnecessary.

wheelchairman
11-10-2010, 07:38 AM
Well I've reconvinced myself (with hr help!) that she's a troll. Well either that or as dumb as I said. Either way.

For Real
11-10-2010, 06:43 PM
For Real, I think you are out of your element. WCM really isn't attacking you. I get that you're bored and drama is one way of filling a void, but it's completely unnecessary.

Well, he is the one who brought a 'gun' into the thread . . .

If you see me as being dramatic, then perhaps you should instruct him not to put 'veiled threats' out on the board. He initiated violence-talk when he used a historical figure's quote involving a weapon in the context of weapon > spiritual. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can clearly see that. Basically, he was saying 'put your fist where your mouth is'. Plus, he has used inflamatory language personally directed at me. THAT is an attack.

I want an apology from him.

For Real
11-10-2010, 06:45 PM
Did you make this in 7 points cause it's the holy number ? Just curious...

Yes! (heehee) gots to sneak in a blessing for the doubting Thomas one way or another! :D

It's not just a holy number - it's the number of perfection. :cool:

Static_Martyr
11-10-2010, 06:51 PM
Yes! (heehee) gots to sneak in a blessing for the doubting Thomas one way or another!

It's not just a holy number - it's the number of perfection.

While we're talking about what's holy:


Originally posted by 1 Timothy 2:11-14

"Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

I'm just sayin'.

For Real
11-10-2010, 07:04 PM
While we're talking about what's holy:

[quote]Originally posted by 1 Timothy 2:11-14

"Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

I'm just sayin'.

Hun, you have no idea how SILENT I am given my circumstances. See for me, talking over the internet here-and-there IS silence.

And I like that biblical quote. However, I think it's applicability was more useful pre-World War I, back when 99% of women stayed home (did not work), did not vote, and some did not drive. But, when WWI happened, a large portion of factories were left un-'manned', so, steps forward woman to fill the factory jobs - as the nation NEEDED it. In my interpretation, God allowed WWI, God allowed woman to work, get the right to vote, make their own money, be single, etc. etc., so women nowadays have a voice.

On the subject of Eve being in trangression. True. The serpent tempted Eve and Eve failed the test, then later so did Adam. Interestingly though, when God next came about the Garden of Eden, He didn't ask for Eve, but instead He asked for Adam. Basically, he held Adam responsible for Eve's transgression. Unfair? Well many call Jesus Christ the '2nd Adam' - that what happened in eden was rectified by Jesus - and that is why ALL men are called to strive to be 'like' Jesus - to "love their wives as Jesus has loved the church". To sacrifice.

Omni
11-10-2010, 07:29 PM
Well, he is the one who brought a 'gun' into the thread . . .

If you see me as being dramatic, then perhaps you should instruct him not to put 'veiled threats' out on the board. He initiated violence-talk when he used a historical figure's quote involving a weapon in the context of weapon > spiritual. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can clearly see that. Basically, he was saying 'put your fist where your mouth is'. Plus, he has used inflamatory language personally directed at me. THAT is an attack.

I want an apology from him.


Your account will be banned long before that apology takes place. A person can only annoy every user, make uncomically stupid posts, and take offense to every opposing view for so long before they get the boot.

wheelchairman
11-10-2010, 08:33 PM
Pff I'll write her an apology. All she has to do is write 41 page demand and send that to the president.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3364241

jacknife737
11-11-2010, 12:26 AM
Pff I'll write her an apology. All she has to do is write 41 page demand and send that to the president.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3364241

That is the craziest fucking thing, that i've ever read.

The demands are simply hysterical: not to mention that the mother refers to herself as the "intellectual property owner" of her son.

Harleyquiiinn
11-11-2010, 01:40 AM
Pff I'll write her an apology. All she has to do is write 41 page demand and send that to the president.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3364241

Is this a real person ? :confused:

At first, I thought the "IP rights owner of my son" was a joke but then I realized it wasn't.

ad8
11-11-2010, 02:15 AM
Pff I'll write her an apology. All she has to do is write 41 page demand and send that to the president.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3364241
Hahahaha! :D
Delusions of grandeur in the USA - A case study

Static_Martyr
11-11-2010, 03:35 AM
[QUOTE=Static_Martyr;1420315]While we're talking about what's holy:

Hun, you have no idea how SILENT I am given my circumstances. See for me, talking over the internet here-and-there IS silence.

And I like that biblical quote. However, I think it's applicability was more useful pre-World War I, back when 99% of women stayed home (did not work), did not vote, and some did not drive. But, when WWI happened, a large portion of factories were left un-'manned', so, steps forward woman to fill the factory jobs - as the nation NEEDED it. In my interpretation, God allowed WWI, God allowed woman to work, get the right to vote, make their own money, be single, etc. etc., so women nowadays have a voice.

On the subject of Eve being in trangression. True. The serpent tempted Eve and Eve failed the test, then later so did Adam. Interestingly though, when God next came about the Garden of Eden, He didn't ask for Eve, but instead He asked for Adam. Basically, he held Adam responsible for Eve's transgression. Unfair? Well many call Jesus Christ the '2nd Adam' - that what happened in eden was rectified by Jesus - and that is why ALL men are called to strive to be 'like' Jesus - to "love their wives as Jesus has loved the church". To sacrifice.

1) I'm pretty sure that by "silent" they meant "silent, period," not "silent in context, given your circumstances." Do you think that argument would've worked on Jesus?

2) Why was it more "applicable" back then than now? What about being a woman has changed such that women now deserve rights, as opposed to not deserving them back them?

3) As for God wanting women to suddenly have rights, I think many American Baptist and Lutheran Church communities would disagree with you...

"After being raped and impregnated by a fellow churchgoer more than twice her age, a 15-year-old Concord girl was forced by Trinity Baptist Church leaders to stand before the congregation to apologize before they helped whisk her out of state, according to the police." (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/police-girl-raped-then-relocated?page=0,0)

Baraboo church doesn't let women speak or vote as school principal is fired. (http://m.host.madison.com/mobile/article_932a56c8-36d4-11df-a17e-001cc4c03286.html)


Women who wanted to ask questions at the meeting were told to write them on a piece of paper and have a man read them aloud. But some, including Hartwig's own daughter, said their questions were never read.

For Real
11-11-2010, 11:34 PM
[QUOTE=For Real;1420318]

1) I'm pretty sure that by "silent" they meant "silent, period," not "silent in context, given your circumstances." Do you think that argument would've worked on Jesus?

When you say 'they', I'm assuming you're talking about the original author, that being The Book of Timothy? Actually, I spoke with Jesus earlier today and He is completely okay with my argument. :p


2) Why was it more "applicable" back then than now? What about being a woman has changed such that women now deserve rights, as opposed to not deserving them back them?

*long sigh* Did you not read anything I wrote? Helloooooo? Like, the 20th century has happened... you know, where technology has boomed so much that the world has changed drastically???

Have you ever heard the expression "you're not paying my bills, and you're not sleeping with me, so you can't tell me what to do?" Apparently, if you're paying someone's way (wife/girlfriend for our discussion purposes), and also sleeping with them, THEN, you have a say over their life.


3) As for God wanting women to suddenly have rights, I think many American Baptist and Lutheran Church communities would disagree with you...

"After being raped and impregnated by a fellow churchgoer more than twice her age, a 15-year-old Concord girl was forced by Trinity Baptist Church leaders to stand before the congregation to apologize before they helped whisk her out of state, according to the police." (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/police-girl-raped-then-relocated?page=0,0)

Baraboo church doesn't let women speak or vote as school principal is fired. (http://m.host.madison.com/mobile/article_932a56c8-36d4-11df-a17e-001cc4c03286.html)

How sad.

When you say "God wanting women to suddenly have rights"... Well, I don't personally interpret it that way. I think more along the lines of God allowing the leaders of the world (all men at the time) to attempt to work out their differences, which unfortunately escalated into world violence in the form of World War I and World War II. Meanwhile God watched/observed us. He saw the need of the vacated factory jobs that were filled by women, then he saw the independence that came along when women began making their own money on a mass level. Of course, there are always exceptions - women were working in isolated jobs here-and-there - it just wasn't the societal norm - World War I changed all that.

$$ = rights

God could actually see all that before it happened.

Man could not see this before it happened. They weren't thinking about how they were about to irrevocably change the world. They were thinking about conquering the world (the bad ones) or defending their country against attack (the good ones).

WWI + WWII + technology = modern world where worldly power is no longer solely in the hands of one gender. Worldly power is now shared.

My view is pretty narrow and old-fashioned by today's standards, about on the level of 1960. Most young people today have NO IDEA that there was once a time when women didn't work outside the home - that this was the societal norm. Today, it is automatically assumed that young girls will have some type of career other than wife & mother. But if you go ALL THE WAY BACK to the Garden of Eden, you will find where God said to Adam and Eve, "Adam, you will toil with sweat and labor to work the Earth until you die", and "Eve, you will know pain in childbirth." Notice God did not say, "Eve, you will toil to work . . . " Something has happened. Something has gone awry. That "something" is the 20th century. See, now Eve is doing the part that Adam was supposed to do and having children too. Is Adam doing Eve's part? Of course not, that is anatomically impossible. I think God allowed man to do things his way and has sat back 'hands off', observing us, mankind, messing ourselves up royally . . . But, even still, it will all work out in the end. In the meantime, women have a voice, maybe not 100% all the time, but a voice, a very strong voice, nonetheless.

Static_Martyr
11-12-2010, 04:46 AM
*long sigh* Did you not read anything I wrote? Helloooooo? Like, the 20th century has happened... you know, where technology has boomed so much that the world has changed drastically???

Doesn't matter. In the Bible, God lays out what is acceptable and what is not --- for all time --- and the rules do not change. Jesus said of the Old Testament laws, "I come not to replace the law, but to uphold it." Allowing societal norms to dictate what is Biblically canon and acceptable defeats the *entire purpose* of having a Biblical canon in the first place.

In fact, allowing societal norms to overrule God's laws is what lead to God destroying the world (and various peoples within it) so many times throughout the Bible.


Have you ever heard the expression "you're not paying my bills, and you're not sleeping with me, so you can't tell me what to do?" Apparently, if you're paying someone's way (wife/girlfriend for our discussion purposes), and also sleeping with them, THEN, you have a say over their life.

So is that God's Biblical rule or is that a social norm that you've accepted in place of it?


How sad.

Indeed. However, you can't say they weren't acting by Biblical rules. Many Baptist congregations require women who engage in sexual conduct before marriage (for any reason, whether it was by force or with consent) to appear before the entire congregation and apologize.

It is only because of the progression of social norms that we have a standard by which to say that this is "sad." By Biblical rule it is quite acceptable.




When you say "God wanting women to suddenly have rights"... Well, I don't personally interpret it that way. I think more along the lines of God allowing the leaders of the world (all men at the time) to attempt to work out their differences, which unfortunately escalated into world violence in the form of World War I and World War II. Meanwhile God watched/observed us. He saw the need of the vacated factory jobs that were filled by women, then he saw the independence that came along when women began making their own money on a mass level. Of course, there are always exceptions - women were working in isolated jobs here-and-there - it just wasn't the societal norm - World War I changed all that.

God has no need to acknowledge the leaders of the human societies; the societies are supposed to bow to HIM, not the other way around. In fact, technically you're supposed to disobey and rebel against unjust laws and unjust societies.

I mean, when he laid out the 10 Commandments (and the many other doctrines in Exodus that are conveniently not discussed when people mention the 10 commandments), he didn't shy around them for fear of upsetting "the world's leaders" at the time. He was straightforward and to the point about what was acceptable and what was not. There's no reason he would need to be so vague just so that he could "allow the world's leaders to attempt to work out their differences." What God wants, he tells you, and what he doesn't, he tells you.


God could actually see all that before it happened.

So are you saying that when the book of Timothy was written, God had World War II specifically in mind? And he was just waiting for it to come so he could suddenly and inexplicably rescind his rules?

It seems to me that you have a personal bias that you're allowing into your belief, just so that you can assert more power than you would be able to if you were actually living Biblically. Allowing women to work only because the men aren't there to do it is a temporary solution to a temporary problem; there's no reason for that to somehow imply that God suddenly wants women to be fully equal to men.


That "something" is the 20th century. See, now Eve is doing the part that Adam was supposed to do and having children too. Is Adam doing Eve's part? Of course not, that is anatomically impossible. I think God allowed man to do things his way and has sat back 'hands off', observing us, mankind, messing ourselves up royally . . . But, even still, it will all work out in the end. In the meantime, women have a voice, maybe not 100% all the time, but a voice, a very strong voice, nonetheless.

Even if that were true, that is not what God wanted:


"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God...For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." --1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9

Given a choice between what's in the Bible and what you feel personally, I'd be more apt to say that the Bible accurately reflects what God wanted.

Paint_It_Black
11-12-2010, 11:29 AM
In my interpretation, God allowed WWI, God allowed woman to work, get the right to vote, make their own money, be single, etc. etc., so women nowadays have a voice.

So basically anything that happens only happens because god allows it, right?

So if WCM is an arrogant, violent sociopath aimed firmly at your destruction that's also being allowed by god, right?

In demanding an apology are you not in fact questioning the will of your god? Who are you to decide that WCM's behavior is unacceptable if god is apparently cool with it?

I think you should pray for forgiveness now.


I think more along the lines of God allowing the leaders of the world (all men at the time) to attempt to work out their differences, which unfortunately escalated into world violence in the form of World War I and World War II. Meanwhile God watched/observed us. He saw the need of the vacated factory jobs that were filled by women, then he saw the independence that came along when women began making their own money on a mass level. Of course, there are always exceptions - women were working in isolated jobs here-and-there - it just wasn't the societal norm - World War I changed all that.

$$ = rights

God could actually see all that before it happened.

Man could not see this before it happened. They weren't thinking about how they were about to irrevocably change the world. They were thinking about conquering the world (the bad ones) or defending their country against attack (the good ones).

So essentially you think you understand not only what the leaders of the world wanted but also what god wanted. You think you know and understand god's plan. You seem to believe you know just about everything. And yet you accuse others of arrogance.

What could be more arrogant than believing you can understand the plans and motivations of a god?

For Real
11-12-2010, 05:50 PM
Doesn't matter. In the Bible, God lays out what is acceptable and what is not --- for all time --- and the rules do not change. Jesus said of the Old Testament laws, "I come not to replace the law, but to uphold it." Allowing societal norms to dictate what is Biblically canon and acceptable defeats the *entire purpose* of having a Biblical canon in the first place.

So now we've gone from the Book of Timothy to the days of Moses and the 10 Comandments, to the times of Jesus. Wow, you seem to quote portions of the Bible for your explicit use as it suits you.

Regarding the old law of Moses, Jesus said, "You have heard of the 10 comandments, but now I give you 2 commandments, that is To love God with your whole heart, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself"

Notice how many of my posts have the word "love" in them?? :p


In fact, allowing societal norms to overrule God's laws is what lead to God destroying the world (and various peoples within it) so many times throughout the Bible.

True.

And I didn't say that societal norms should completely overrule all of God's laws. We are talking specifically about women not having a voice/worldly power vs. men having a voice/worldly power.

You know, the more I think about this the more I see something else: Perhaps God allowed the world leaders to cause much destruction in WWI and WWII, so that women could rise up in powerful positions so as to prevent any other World Wars from happening? Man, I tell you, that testosterone can be a real killer sometimes! (heehee, just picking on ya). But seriously, I think that the world is now safe from ever seeing WWIII because the "weaker sex" is a part of the decision-making processes nowadays. Hurray! :D


So is that God's Biblical rule or is that a social norm that you've accepted in place of it?

Um, I'm assuming you are talking about male/female roles within a close relationship? Well, I personally don't want a cave man type who goes out and hits his woman over the head and drags her back to his cave so as to do what he wants with her (lol) (man I'm gonna hear about that one lol).

"I've accepted in place..." Hun, if you wanna find me a man who will pay my bills, sacrifice for me, and love me the way Jesus loves the church, then I will gladly give up my worldly voice. lol


Indeed. However, you can't say they weren't acting by Biblical rules. Many Baptist congregations require women who engage in sexual conduct before marriage (for any reason, whether it was by force or with consent) to appear before the entire congregation and apologize.

It is only because of the progression of social norms that we have a standard by which to say that this is "sad." By Biblical rule it is quite acceptable.

Not dignifying this with any further comments.


God has no need to acknowledge the leaders of the human societies; the societies are supposed to bow to HIM, not the other way around. In fact, technically you're supposed to disobey and rebel against unjust laws and unjust societies.

I mean, when he laid out the 10 Commandments (and the many other doctrines in Exodus that are conveniently not discussed when people mention the 10 commandments), he didn't shy around them for fear of upsetting "the world's leaders" at the time. He was straightforward and to the point about what was acceptable and what was not. There's no reason he would need to be so vague just so that he could "allow the world's leaders to attempt to work out their differences." What God wants, he tells you, and what he doesn't, he tells you.

Agreed.


So are you saying that when the book of Timothy was written, God had World War II specifically in mind? And he was just waiting for it to come so he could suddenly and inexplicably rescind his rules?

No, I am not saying the book of Timothy was specifically written with WWII in mind so as to rescind rules.

I was taught to search and question all things. When I look at the scripture you quoted from Timothy, my common sense tells me it is not entirely applicable to today's society. Hun, I didn't create the society that I live in, I just live in the most peaceful way that I know how. Now, remembering the 2 laws that Jesus gave, to love God, and to love neighbor, I think it's fair to apply scriptures that work with the grain of society and not against it. If you keep LOVE uppermost in your mind, then I'm sure you will have no problem finding a woman to "cave man...", um, I mean, finding a woman who will respect you and do as you say. Respect is earned. Love first, and the rest will fall into place.


It seems to me that you have a personal bias that you're allowing into your belief, just so that you can assert more power than you would be able to if you were actually living Biblically.

Wow, I feel judged. Imagine that.

Um, no personal bias, just personal circumstances. But they are my personal circumstances, my personal experiences, my personal beliefs, because I have a personal relationship with God. I will answer to Him first, then man, especially in this day and time. When I find a man whom I respect and trust, then that will change. Until then, it's me and the Lord!


Allowing women to work only because the men aren't there to do it is a temporary solution to a temporary problem; there's no reason for that to somehow imply that God suddenly wants women to be fully equal to men.

Yay! When can I quit working??? (and still keep a similar, if not better, lifestyle...)

:D


Even if that were true, that is not what God wanted:

Well, if men didn't want women to share the power, then men should not have had WWI and WWII.


Given a choice between what's in the Bible and what you feel personally, I'd be more apt to say that the Bible accurately reflects what God wanted.

Hun, it's not about what I "feel". It's more along the lines of wisdom, forged and ironed out through fires of purification. How can you say that God did not want this society to be the way it is with women working, sharing power, etc.? I actually believe it's all part of God's master plan. Does it make for a current peaceful society? No. Does it mean man is able to be at peace within his own household? Maybe, if he is able to bring home enough $ so that the woman doesn't have to work. Did it open up the feminist movement? Yes. Is that entirely a good or a bad thing? Neither. It is both. Did the feminist movement pave the way for abortions to be allowed through the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes. Is that a good thing? No. Did this Supreme Court ruling pave the way for even more complex judicial rulings re partial-birth abortions, mid- to late-term abortions, embryonic stem cell transplants, invitro fertilization, and on, and on.

Obviously, our modern society is not what Adam and Eve once lived in.
Our modern society is also not what Moses or Timothy lived in.
God knew this, so God sent His son Jesus.

Jesus, the Christ, set up his church on Earth to spread a message - that is a message of love. Why do we need a message of love? What is love? Love is forgiveness, kindness, understanding, patience, a soft voice, etc. We need all of these things because the world is not at peace. The world is in conflict. Why would God allow the world to be in confict, so much so, that we now question the applicability of isolated scripture? God allowed all of this because man has free choice. And while it may not seem like it now, man will make the right choice in the end. Why? For God's glory, that is why. So that all men will KNOW that God is King of kings, and Lord of lords. :cool:

"Every eye shall see Him, and every knee shall bow" <<-------- another favorite scripture that Pastor Hagee likes to quote.

For Real
11-12-2010, 06:17 PM
So basically anything that happens only happens because god allows it, right?

So if WCM is an arrogant, violent sociopath aimed firmly at your destruction that's also being allowed by god, right?

In demanding an apology are you not in fact questioning the will of your god? Who are you to decide that WCM's behavior is unacceptable if god is apparently cool with it?

Now you're talking about 2 different things:

1. God allowing behavior to happen is one thing
2. But whether or not 'god is apparently cool with it' is another thing

WCM will know whether or not God is cool with his behavior in the next life . . .

See, just because God allows bad things to happen, does not mean He's cool with it. He allows it because He has given mankind free choice. You can decide what you want to do, as can I. Hopefully we will all decide to make mostly good choices. No human is free of sin. Jesus was the only one clothed in human flesh who did not make bad choices, did not sin. Humans are sinful, because of free will. But sin is forgiveable, especially if we tried really hard not to sin in the first place. This life is not about being perfect, but rather, it's about the stuggle. The struggle within one's conscience to make mostly good choices based on love.


What could be more arrogant than believing you can understand the plans and motivations of a god?

There is nothing wrong with attempting to understand the plans and motivations of God. It is not being arrogant. My beliefs are just that. Beliefs. Your beliefs are yours. And if what I believe turns out to be wrong, then may God correct me (directly from Him, not from you).

Static_Martyr
11-12-2010, 06:32 PM
So now we've gone from the Book of Timothy to the days of Moses and the 10 Comandments, to the times of Jesus. Wow, you seem to quote portions of the Bible for your explicit use as it suits you.

There you go picking and choosing again. The "days of Moses and the 10 commandments" are applicable to today's world --- if you think otherwise, maybe you should take that up with all of the courthouses in the U.S. that post the 10 Commandments openly for all to see? The laws are *supposed* to be timeless and permanent, not temporary and subject to change by human whim; what would the point be if God compromised in such a way? That would make it "the 10 Suggestions."


Regarding the old law of Moses, Jesus said, "You have heard of the 10 comandments, but now I give you 2 commandments, that is To love God with your whole heart, and to love your neighbor as you love yourself"

Notice how many of my posts have the word "love" in them??

From a Biblical view, all "love" means is to bring one closer to God. God is defined as "love" and "goodness" and any time someone uses that word, they're said to be referring to the ultimate standard of "goodness" or "love," which would be God. So the words may seem harsh, but by Biblical definition they are "loving" because they seek to align society's norms with those of God and his original demands --- not the demands of rebellious humans who want to change and shift his words to justify whatever they want to do in the moment.


True.

And I didn't say that societal norms should completely overrule all of God's laws. We are talking specifically about women not having a voice/worldly power vs. men having a voice/worldly power.

And yet you continue to use "social norms" as a reason to defy the laws of the OT *and* the NT (Timothy is a NT book). You say it's not "applicable?" Let's examine that; why is it "not applicable?" Because "times have changed?" That's referring to social norms, or human laws. NOT God's laws. Whether you realize it or not, what you are saying is that the evolution of human laws is supposed to supercede the authority of God's original laws. Do you believe that or not?

Just because YOU think it's "dated" or "no longer applicable" does not mean that it isn't. Society has only changed because we (humans) have LET it change.


You know, the more I think about this the more I see something else: Perhaps God allowed the world leaders to cause much destruction in WWI and WWII, so that women could rise up in powerful positions so as to prevent any other World Wars from happening? Man, I tell you, that testosterone can be a real killer sometimes! (heehee, just picking on ya). But seriously, I think that the world is now safe from ever seeing WWIII because the "weaker sex" is a part of the decision-making processes nowadays. Hurray!

I don't know how much clearer the Bible (OT *and* NT) could be on the intent of God for man's authority to overrule women's authority. The Timothy quote came from a time when women would speak up on matters in church, which was viewed as "disruptive" because it "usurped the authority of the man." What, in your view, has changed that makes this "no longer applicable?" It seems to me that you think it never was applicable, which has a whole different set of implications --- you think it was wrong in the first place. Am I correct? If not, please explain why you think it was okay then, but not now.

Although I have a feeling it's because you weren't alive back then to have to live up to such laws; now that YOU'RE here, you feel like you deserve special rights that people back then didn't deserve (because it's easier to just take what you want than to live by the laws set forth in the Bible). Maybe you'd feel differently if you had to live back then?


Um, I'm assuming you are talking about male/female roles within a close relationship? Well, I personally don't want a cave man type who goes out and hits his woman over the head and drags her back to his cave so as to do what he wants with her (lol) (man I'm gonna hear about that one lol).

"I've accepted in place..." Hun, if you wanna find me a man who will pay my bills, sacrifice for me, and love me the way Jesus loves the church, then I will gladly give up my worldly voice. lol

Who said anything about cavemen? Are you even paying attention? I don't know what kind of super-liberal church you go to or what they're telling you, but there are no cavemen in the Bible.

Secondly, which church are you talking about? The Catholic church? One of the zillions of Evangelical or other Protestant churches? I think Jesus would have a hard time accepting pretty much any of them, the way (http://vimeo.com/16359090) they (http://blackchristiannews.com/news/2010/04/watch-pastor-ed-youngs-leased-jet-traveled-to-exotic-locations-he-says-the-investigation-about-his-l.html) practice today. They focus more on petty rituals than on actually practicing what they preach.


Not dignifying this with any further comments.

What's wrong? Afraid of the Biblical truth? Do you realize that you've been put in a corner and you have nothing to say?


Agreed.

So you admit that I was correct before? Your argument that God was "letting us work out our differences" is bunk.


No, I am not saying the book of Timothy was specifically written with WWII in mind so as to rescind rules.

I was taught to search and question all things. When I look at the scripture you quoted from Timothy, my common sense tells me it is not entirely applicable to today's society. Hun, I didn't create the society that I live in, I just live in the most peaceful way that I know how. Now, remembering the 2 laws that Jesus gave, to love God, and to love neighbor, I think it's fair to apply scriptures that work with the grain of society and not against it. If you keep LOVE uppermost in your mind, then I'm sure you will have no problem finding a woman to "cave man...", um, I mean, finding a woman who will respect you and do as you say. Respect is earned. Love first, and the rest will fall into place.

"Common sense?" If that's all it took, anyone could take any rule in the Bible and say "common sense says it doesn't apply." What if we said, "Common sense tells me that 'thou shalt not murder' doesn't apply?" Is that all you've got?

To "love God" means to obey his laws and to bring others to him and to obey his laws. Your hippy-liberal version of "love" is completely different from what was intended; God wasn't afraid to kill people who refused to "love" him.


Um, no personal bias, just personal circumstances. But they are my personal circumstances, my personal experiences, my personal beliefs, because I have a personal relationship with God. I will answer to Him first, then man, especially in this day and time. When I find a man whom I respect and trust, then that will change. Until then, it's me and the Lord!

Exactly! YOUR personal feelings, YOUR personal ideas. Not God's.


Yay! When can I quit working??? (and still keep a similar, if not better, lifestyle...)

Perhaps when you line up a little better with the Biblical intent for human life and stop being a rebellious hippy.


Well, if men didn't want women to share the power, then men should not have had WWI and WWII.

So now you're saying God somehow wasn't aware that men would start WWI and WWII? As if God made the rule of male superiority without realizing that men would abuse that power sometimes? If he's omniscient, then he saw it long beforehand and he knew what would happen. He had a greater purpose in mind. Who are you to say you know better? Or is this more of YOUR "personal circumstances?"


Hun, it's not about what I "feel". It's more along the lines of wisdom, forged and ironed out through fires of purification. How can you say that God did not want this society to be the way it is (with women working, sharing power, etc.). I actually believe it's all part of God's master plan. Does it make for a current peaceful society? No. Does it mean man is able to be at peace within his own household? Maybe, if he is able to bring home enough $ so that the woman doesn't have to work. Did it open up the feminist movement? Yes. Is that entirely a good or a bad thing? Neither. It is both. Did the feminist movement pave the way for abortions to be allowed through the U.S. Supreme Court? Yes. Is that a good thing? No. Did this Supreme Court ruling pave the way for even more complex judicial rulings re partial-birth abortions, mid- to late-term abortions, embryonic stem cell transplants, invitro fertilization, and on, and on.

You are making my case for me; you'd rather have all of these temporal, superficial, temporary "freedoms" than to be in line with the teachings of the god you say you believe in. It's more important that you have "voting rights" than that you do what God intended. You're willing to trade the traditional laws for women's "rights" to have abortions.


Obviously, our modern society is not what Adam and Eve once lived in.
Our modern society is also not what Moses or Timothy lived in.
God knew this, so God sent His son Jesus.

Oh, please! Now you sound like a Mormon.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -- Jesus, Matthew 5:17.

Translation: The laws are the same as they were. The laws have not changed. All that has changed is how they are meant to be enforced. They are not to be "ignored" at the convenience of the individual.

Static_Martyr
11-12-2010, 06:41 PM
"Every eye shall see Him, and every knee shall bow" <<-------- another favorite scripture that Pastor Hagee likes to quote.

THAT explains it. I forgot you watch TBN; the MOST corrupt "Christian" institution in the entire world, next to the Catholic "church." Home to Joyce Meyers and her ministry-supported private residence, (http://www.biblestudyspace.com/profiles/blogs/heresies-in-the-church-tbn) Creflo Dollar's financial faux-pas (http://mediaoutrage.com/category/creflo-dollar/), Benny Hinn and his blasphemous impersonation, Pat "Let's-Politicize-The-Haiti-Earthquake-Situation" Robertson, (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-12017-504083.html) and worst of all, John Hagee, the racist Jew-hater. (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/16/163859/055)

TBN is completely, utterly corrupt and broken.

For Real
11-12-2010, 06:51 PM
uggghhhh...

*bangs head against wall*

I just have one thing further to ask you... Given that you present yourself as waaaayyy more of a "conservative" type, intolerant, misognynistic woman-hater, when compared to the picture you paint of me being all "liberal-hippy", loving, understanding, etc............

..........Why are you on a rock and roll board at all??? Don't you think your narrow version of God and the "stick-to-the-10-comandments or else!" mentality, yet hanging out on rock and roll board, is more than a bit rebellious of what God would want from you???

For Real
11-12-2010, 06:56 PM
THAT explains it. I forgot you watch TBN; the MOST corrupt "Christian" institution in the entire world, next to the Catholic "church." Home to Joyce Meyers and her ministry-supported private residence, (http://www.biblestudyspace.com/profiles/blogs/heresies-in-the-church-tbn) Creflo Dollar's financial faux-pas (http://mediaoutrage.com/category/creflo-dollar/), Benny Hinn and his blasphemous impersonation, Pat "Let's-Politicize-The-Haiti-Earthquake-Situation" Robertson, (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-12017-504083.html) and worst of all, John Hagee, the racist Jew-hater. (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/16/163859/055)

TBN is completely, utterly corrupt and broken.

At least they are trying.

One day, when you stop hating on people and start loving, you'll see things more like I do.....

May God Bless You with whatever it is that you need most.

:)

WebDudette
11-12-2010, 07:17 PM
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

I have to say though, it's funny that you call Martyr the 'misogynistic woman-hater' when you're the one who is happy to give up your voice and opinions if a man is paying your way.

Static_Martyr
11-12-2010, 07:25 PM
I just have one thing further to ask you... Given that you present yourself as waaaayyy more of a "conservative" type, intolerant, misognynistic woman-hater, when compared to the picture you paint of me being all "liberal-hippy", loving, understanding, etc............

..........Why are you on a rock and roll board at all??? Don't you think your narrow version of God and the "stick-to-the-10-comandments or else!" mentality, yet hanging out on rock and roll board, is more than a bit rebellious of what God would want from you???

Because I'm bored and you should really know this (http://www.offspring.com/community/showthread.php?t=42743) by now.

For Real
11-12-2010, 09:31 PM
it's funny that you call Martyr the 'misogynistic woman-hater' when you're the one who is happy to give up your voice and opinions if a man is paying your way.

. . . that's only after he gets my respect and trust, which would only happen if there were a very true love between the two of us . . . see, I wouldn't need a voice at that point in time, because my man would be my voice, because if we chime along together to the tune of true love, then, more than likely, he will have thoughts and beliefs very similar to my own. I could rest easy knowing that my interests are in good hands . . . I would, at that point in time, be under the protection of a loving husband <<--------this is what it REALLY means for the man to be the head of the family and for the woman to submit to her husband. It's about loving and protecting the woman, not controlling and bossing her out of one's pride, self-love, and self-interests.

Paint_It_Black
11-13-2010, 03:04 AM
There is nothing wrong with attempting to understand the plans and motivations of God. It is not being arrogant.

Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

You are arrogant.


And if what I believe turns out to be wrong, then may God correct me (directly from Him, not from you).

What if he is correcting you through me? Your refusal to accept anything other than a direct conversation with your god again shows your immense arrogance.

What if I told you I'm an angel? Would that be good enough? Or is even middle-management not enough to satisfy your insatiable arrogance? Has to be the big boss himself huh?


See, just because God allows bad things to happen, does not mean He's cool with it. He allows it because He has given mankind free choice. [/I].

Actually, it means exactly that he must be cool with it. If you allow something to happen which you could stop so easily that it would take less effort than blinking, well, that means you're cool with it. Wrap it up in free will if you like. But when your god gave mankind free will, and let mankind keep free will after the first baby was raped and murdered, well, then your god is cool with raping and murdering babies. He could stop it. He chooses not to. Deal with it. If I walked by a baby being raped and tortured and mutilated and did nothing to stop it you'd call me a monster. But your god can ignore shit all day long and it's fine. Just accept that he's cool with it. You have to.

Your argument is like an arms dealer trying to argue that they aren't cool with people killing each other. Just because you sell someone a gun doesn't mean you support them shooting someone with it, right? No, actually it pretty much does. That's what people do with guns. And your god made all the guns. And all the bombs. He personally crafted the souls residing inside every pedophile. He's totally cool with it.

Static_Martyr
11-13-2010, 05:48 AM
See, just because God allows bad things to happen, does not mean He's cool with it. He allows it because He has given mankind free choice.


Originally posted by Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

If God made humans, then God made humans inherently sinful. He deliberately instilled them with that nature. What sense does it make to blame the creation for the nature that was instilled by the creator? God may not have created "sin" itself, but he created the capacity for it; it could not exist if he did not deliberately establish the conditions that lead to its creation.

For Real
11-13-2010, 05:21 PM
Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

You are arrogant.



What if he is correcting you through me? Your refusal to accept anything other than a direct conversation with your god again shows your immense arrogance.

What if I told you I'm an angel? Would that be good enough? Or is even middle-management not enough to satisfy your insatiable arrogance? Has to be the big boss himself huh?



Actually, it means exactly that he must be cool with it. If you allow something to happen which you could stop so easily that it would take less effort than blinking, well, that means you're cool with it. Wrap it up in free will if you like. But when your god gave mankind free will, and let mankind keep free will after the first baby was raped and murdered, well, then your god is cool with raping and murdering babies. He could stop it. He chooses not to. Deal with it. If I walked by a baby being raped and tortured and mutilated and did nothing to stop it you'd call me a monster. But your god can ignore shit all day long and it's fine. Just accept that he's cool with it. You have to.

Your argument is like an arms dealer trying to argue that they aren't cool with people killing each other. Just because you sell someone a gun doesn't mean you support them shooting someone with it, right? No, actually it pretty much does. That's what people do with guns. And your god made all the guns. And all the bombs. He personally crafted the souls residing inside every pedophile. He's totally cool with it.

Um, at this juncture, I'll have to say that, "we agree to disagree"

You can believe how you want to believe and I will believe how I want to believe.

For Real
11-13-2010, 06:45 PM
If God made humans, then God made humans inherently sinful. He deliberately instilled them with that nature. What sense does it make to blame the creation for the nature that was instilled by the creator? God may not have created "sin" itself, but he created the capacity for it; it could not exist if he did not deliberately establish the conditions that lead to its creation.

My first thought is: "God bless you during these struggles"

My second thought is: "God did not create sin"

My third thought is: "Hmm, maybe god did create the capacity for sin - sin as we know it on a human level"

And my fourth thought is: "If sin entered the world via Satan, then one is tempted to think that God is blaming creation for sin. However, once Satan sinned, he became his own creation - that is why God changed his name to Lucifer. He was no longer God's creation at that point in time"

Sin is a result of the Angel Lucifer falling from heaven down to the earth. When this happened, God changed his name to Satan. So, it was Satan that tempted Eve with the apple in the Garden of Eden, not God. God saw this and visited Adam and Eve saying, "Adam where are you? Why are you hiding?" Adam said, "Because I am naked and afraid." Then God said, "How do you know your naked?" Adam said "When the woman you put here with me gave me the apple, I realized I was naked." God said, "But Adam, I told you and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. But you did anyway. You disobeyed me. Adam said, "But the woman persuaded me to eat it." God said, "Eve why did you eat from the Tree of Knowledge?" Eve said, "The serpent (Satan) tricked me into eating it." God thought about all of this and knew Adam and Eve were not completely at fault, so he put them and all of their offspring into a semi-fallen state on Earth - a place between heaven and hell. God announced their punishment and told them to not do it again.

Who knows if God knew all of this would happen exactly as it did? Only God knows for sure. The IMPORTANT thing to learn here is that God doesn't send his creation (humans) to hell for the least little thing. He is a forgiving God. He will punish and tell us to try and try again.

You may ask Why did all of this have to happen in the first place? Why did God allow Satan to enter the pristine Garden of Eden at all? Why not just keep Satan out and let Adam and Eve be as they were before sin entered the world?

These are very thought-provoking questions... Nobody really knows, but I have a few possible answers...

1. God allowed Satan to enter the Garden of Eden in order to "test" Adam and Eve's obedience to Him.
2. Once Adam and Eve disobeyed God, some knowledge was given to Adam and Eve. Not ALL knowledge, for God is the only one who is All-Knowing.
3. Because of Adam and Eve's disobedience, all of mankind (their offspring) are born with original sin. All humans are sinners. I used to think, "Why?" "Why do this to us humans?" "Why, why, why...arrghh!" Slowly over time I began to see that being a "lowly sinner" is actually a good thing. Yep. See, Satan never was a human. He never experienced a semi-fallen state. He just out-and-out disobeyed God in heaven. However, us humans are given a chance to be redeemed. We are sinful, so that we can be forgiven by God - this sets up a dependence on God, the Father. We need God. We cannot live joyfully without God. We cannot get to heaven without God. We need Him. Contrast this with Satan who is full of himself. Satan (when he was Lucifer) wanted to BE God. He wanted to be worshipped and adored. But Lucifer was a created being - created by God. No created beings can be God. God is God, and there is only 1. Satan, because of the sin of Pride, was kicked out of heaven. He made a pitstop by Earth to do battle with God's other creations - us humans. He hates us, because he knows that we have a good chance to be redeemed. Why is "redeemed" such a good thing?? Because once we humans get redeemed, and enter heaven, we will NEVER be kicked out. Why? Because this Earth is the testing place. We will make our choices, sin, triumph, be forgiven, relapse, pick ourselves up again over and over until we get it right (most of us, anyway). Can you imagine entering heaven knowing you'll never be kicked out like Lucifer was? Aweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesooommee!

One last thought: Some people who have "sympathy for the devil" will say, but why doesn't God forgive Satan? The answer to that is, God would forgive him if Satan would ask. But, Satan never asks, because he is full of pride. He is self-deluded. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong. He is also very jealous of us humans. He will trick us, deceive us, kill us, steal from us, and ultimately destroy our souls. See, hell was never intended for humans to go there. Hell was a place created for Satan to reside. Satan knows this and hates us. He is very very jealous of our ability to choose, to have free will, and to have this time on Earth to learn and choose. So never EVER have sympathy for the devil, because he is very very bad, and very very ugly - so I've heard. I don't ever want to see him.

'nuff about the evil one. God will triumph. God, and all the good angels, and all of us saints. Yes, we are saints. Anybody who keeps up the good fight in these times that we live in is a saint and will have a place in Heaven. :)

Static_Martyr
11-13-2010, 07:29 PM
Sin is a result of the Angel Lucifer falling from heaven down to the earth.

And who created Satan? Do you mean to imply that when God created Satan, he "didn't realize" that Satan would turn against him? Some have even put forth the idea that God created Satan on purpose, knowing what he would do (and God DID know, otherwise he would not be omniscient), for the purpose of tempting humans to determine who was truly "righteous."

So if Sin is a result of Lucifer/Satan, then sin was created by God. Because God created Lucifer/Satan, and Lucifer/Satan could not have acted against God in the first place had God not first created him with the capacity to do so. I mean, who was it that gave the angels free will?

Anyway, most Baptists and other Protestants would disagree with you (or not --- you contradict yourself later in your post by saying that humans are sinful because they sinned in the garden of Eden, which would imply that they had the capacity to sin, which God had to create in them); most Protestant churches preach that sin is inherent in human nature, and that we were created this way because of "free will." Which would imply --- no matter how we try to justify it by saying "evil must exist in order for us to have free will" --- that God deliberately created sin (because he created humans with the capacity to make the choice to sin), and that he punishes people (eternally, in hell) because they choose to actually use the freedom of choice that he gave them.

In light of this, saying that God "gives us a choice" in any way is like a man going on trial for rape and saying, in his defense, "I gave that woman a choice! It was her choice to let me rape her, or to let me shoot her in the head if she struggled. She chose to be raped; therefore the sex we had was consentual and not rape."


We need God. We cannot live joyfully without God. We cannot get to heaven without God.

As long as you're speaking for yourself and not me :cool:


Can you imagine entering heaven knowing you'll never be kicked out like Lucifer was? Aweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesooommee!

The whole idea of Christian heaven seems pretty lame to me. Being consistently content and "joyful" forever? That's unnatural. The only reason joy even means anything to me is because I have pain to contrast it with. After a few thousand milennia of being so "joyful" all the time, I think I'd get tired of it and start looking for things to do and challenges to overcome.

"Paradise? For castrated sheep, maybe. Sounds pretty boring to me."

For Real
11-13-2010, 08:27 PM
And who created Satan? Do you mean to imply that when God created Satan, he "didn't realize" that Satan would turn against him? Some have even put forth the idea that God created Satan on purpose, knowing what he would do (and God DID know, otherwise he would not be omniscient), for the purpose of tempting humans to determine who was truly "righteous."

Only God knows for sure. We can only speculate on this one.


So if Sin is a result of Lucifer/Satan, then sin was created by God.

No, sin was not created by God. Free will was created by God. Satan used his free will and chose to sin.


Because God created Lucifer/Satan,

Not quite. God created Lucifer only. Satan is a product of Lucifer's creation - stemming from Satan's free will. The name "Satan" was given to him by God as a label to distinguish between what God had intended, and what Lucifer ended up doing.


and Lucifer/Satan could not have acted against God in the first place had God not first created him with the capacity to do so. I mean, who was it that gave the angels free will?

capacity = free will

Lucifer made his choice. Don't feel sorry for him - he's not human.


Anyway, most Baptists and other Protestants would disagree with you (or not --- you contradict yourself later in your post by saying that humans are sinful because they sinned in the garden of Eden, which would imply that they had the capacity to sin, which God had to create in them);

I don't see where the contradiction is. God created Free Will. If by "capacity to sin" you mean free will, then yes, I agree with that.


most Protestant churches preach that sin is inherent in human nature, and that we were created this way because of "free will." Which would imply --- no matter how we try to justify it by saying "evil must exist in order for us to have free will" --- that God deliberately created sin

God did not create sin. He created free will.


(because he created humans with the capacity to make the choice to sin), and that he punishes people (eternally, in hell) because they choose to actually use the freedom of choice that he gave them.

Huh? That is only if they use the freedom of choice to sin and sin badly. Some people don't get punished eternally in hell and yet they have sinned. Those are people who have tried very hard not to sin, and asked for forgiveness - they are redeemed.


The whole idea of Christian heaven seems pretty lame to me. Being consistently content and "joyful" forever? That's unnatural.

Of course it's unnatural. It's unnatural to us as humans. But, when we get to heaven we will no longer be in the natural. We will no longer be human. We will be in the supernatural.


The only reason joy even means anything to me is because I have pain to contrast it with.

Blame Satan for that pain. God didn't cause it. Satan caused it. All good things come from God no matter how great or small. All bad things come from Satan no matter how great or small.


After a few thousand milennia of being so "joyful" all the time, I think I'd get tired of it

No you wouldn't ever get tired. See, you're trying to understand this with your human mind/logic/body. Humans get tired. Beings in heaven don't get tired.


and start looking for things to do and challenges to overcome.

I used to think like that.


"Paradise? For castrated sheep, maybe. Sounds pretty boring to me."

To quote Father Carapi: "In the end, you and I will be in 1 of 2 places, heaven or hell."

I'd rather be in heaven/paradise. And no, it doesn't get boring there. There are eternal glories, energy abounds. There are things to do, people to see, and places to go.

Paint_It_Black
11-14-2010, 12:14 AM
My second thought is: "God did not create sin"


I thought your god created everything? If anything was created that he did not intend then he is not perfect. I thought your god was supposed to be a perfect being?


However, once Satan sinned, he became his own creation - that is why God changed his name to Lucifer. He was no longer God's creation at that point in time"

When I let rip a particularly awesome fart and blame it on the dog some people might believe that it was truly the dog. But in reality it was and always will be my creation. No amount of lying can change the past. Your god's solution to his own fuck-ups is to simply deny responsibility? No wonder Republicans love your god so much.


Sin is a result of the Angel Lucifer falling from heaven down to the earth. When this happened, God changed his name to Satan.

I thought your angels were never given free will? Isn't that supposed to be for man alone? If angels were not given free will then your god directly forced this poor angel to become Satan.



Who knows if God knew all of this would happen exactly as it did?

Uh, isn't your god supposed to know everything? If he doesn't know everything how can you have absolute trust in him? If he doesn't know everything he is capable of making monumental fuckups. Which of course I've already proven that he has, so this should be a moot point by now.


2. Once Adam and Eve disobeyed God, some knowledge was given to Adam and Eve. Not ALL knowledge, for God is the only one who is All-Knowing.

Oh, see, now he's all-knowing again. You can't even keep your own nonsense consistent, can you?


1. God allowed Satan to enter the Garden of Eden in order to "test" Adam and Eve's obedience to Him.

Your all-knowing god needed to perform a test. You don't see a problem with that?


Contrast this with Satan who is full of himself. Satan (when he was Lucifer) wanted to BE God. He wanted to be worshipped and adored. But Lucifer was a created being - created by God.

Created with design flaws that he was then punished for possessing. These design flaws, by the way, were really just that he was too much like your god. Your god is full of himself. Your god wants to be a god. Your god wants to be worshipped and adored. Apparently it's ok for him but not for anyone else. Why is that? And if you say "because he is God" then you know, deep down, that that is circular logic and total bullshit.


Because this Earth is the testing place. We will make our choices, sin, triumph, be forgiven, relapse, pick ourselves up again over and over until we get it right (most of us, anyway).

But your god could have made us perfect from the start, right? There was no need for all of this. So either your god couldn't make us perfect or he's just playing with us for his own amusement.


Satan knows this and hates us. He is very very jealous of our ability to choose, to have free will, and to have this time on Earth to learn and choose.

Please pay attention now. Right here you fully admit that Satan does not have free will. Have you ever, for even one second, stopped to consider the implications? He does not have free will. He does not get to make choices. He did not choose to betray your god. Your god made him do it all and then punished him for it. How can you not have sympanthy for the devil? He's the ultimate scapegoat. You claim that Satan does not believe he has done anything wrong. If he lacks free will as you say then how can you possibly disagree with this assertion? If he is not allowed to make choices then he cannot have possibly done anything wrong. He's done exactly what he was created to do. Your Satan is easily the most tragic character ever created. And your god is the worst villain immaginable.


God will triumph. God, and all the good angels, and all of us saints.

You've decided for yourself that you are a saint. Are you willing to concede yet that you are arrogant?

You seem to like to say that your god created free will but did not create sin. Sin was created by beings who misused their free will. Ok. That's dumb, but ok, for sake of argument let's say I'm ok with that. Your god is still the ultimate source of all evil in the world. He may not have directly created it, he may not have intended it, he may not even like it. But he is the ultimate source of it. And, even worse, your god could stop it. But he chooses not to.

You worship the ultimate source of evil. I hope your conscience is fine with that. Mine wouldn't be. It's probably fortunate for me that I don't believe your god exists. It's bad enough believing I live in a pointless universe but it would be oh so much worse to believe I lived in a universe created by your god. Hell is probably the most generous thing your god has ever given us. A place that's free of him. I'm comforted to know that if I'm wrong in what I believe and you are (against all sense and logic) somehow correct then I actually still win. I get to go to hell. That's way better than just ceasing to exist like what I expect to happen, and infinitely better than having to spend eternity with your god. The source of all evil in the world.

If you ignore everything I've just said I'd like you to answer this one question. Deep down, somewhere really buried down deep, do you know that you're delusional? I'm not saying this merely because you have faith. I'm saying this because your own personal set of beliefs clearly lacks any consistent internal logic. You make it up as you go along depending on what you need it to be at the time. You contradict yourself constantly. Are you in any way aware that you do this? On a scale of one to ten, how crazy are you?

wheelchairman
11-14-2010, 03:10 AM
I got the impression that she only wants to win arguments, not to be relective, or coherent. That's also why reasoning with her is kinda pointless.

mrconeman
11-14-2010, 06:16 AM
After reading all of this thread (and only about half of For Reals posts, because I don't have the patience of a fucking Saint, or disabled persons carer), I have come to the conclusion that in this boards very long, and very rich history of idiotic on a maniacal scale fucktards, For Real has got to be one of the stupidest people this board has ever encountered. I mean that is some serious idiocy.

I'll apologise directly if you're any younger than like 15, because you use the reasoning and logic of a young, niaeve and not particularly bright teenager, maybe even younger than that, and if you are a young teenager that's fair enough, I'd be willing to speak to you in another 5 years and see how you've come along. But if you're any older than that, there is no hope, and you are one of the stupidest individuals I've ever had the displeasure of reading of their thoughts.

I'm not even going to take up any argumentative stance or points on what's been said in the thread, because as great of a job Per and Richard have done of exposing your mentality already, I fear all of their efforts are completely in vain. It's exactly what WCM said, you don't argue like the rest of us to hopefully gain some form of enlightenment or at least better understanding of the other persons perspective. Or even to reach some kind of a concensus, you argue to win, regardless of how insane you sound.

I'm looking forward to whatever scripture you use to reply to this thread, but I'm looking forward even more to the day you learn to think for yourself.

ps.
Best thread in ages, good job Per/Richard.

Llamas
11-14-2010, 06:42 AM
For Real has no idea what he is talking about. Richard, you're arguing the logic of someone who doesn't understand his own religion.

According to many Christians, God created free will so that there could be sin. He did so because he wanted to prove/exercise his grace and love. Sin was used for the crucifixion. It was set up so that jesus could save everyone.

Honestly, it's a pretty fucked up concept. Some people argue this whole "god gave us free will" thing, but is it really free will if he's going to punish you for making the wrong choice? Is it really free will if it was all a big setup to make everyone love him and rely on him?

Richard, you do make good points about satan, though. It's a huge flaw in logic that god created satan, knew that satan would be evil and sin, knew he'd have to kick him out of heaven, and knew that he'd go on to make evil in the world... why did god create him in the first place, then? I'm not sure whether or not angels had free will, but why would god even bother creating satan? He's all-knowing - he knew what satan would turn out to be. I've never met anyone who was able to explain god's motives there. It also extends to a more general question of why god creates people who are going to go to hell in the first place. Does he want hell to grow? Why doesn't he only create "good" people who will be saved and go to heaven?

mrconeman
11-14-2010, 07:11 AM
For Real has no idea what he is talking about. Richard, you're arguing the logic of someone who doesn't understand his own religion.


Hey Brian, man, don't be so sexist, For Real is a girl, you misogynist woman hater! :mad:

Llamas
11-14-2010, 07:23 AM
Hey Brian, man, don't be so sexist, For Real is a girl, you misogynist woman hater! :mad:

*Like* Fuck women, man! Had I known For Real was a woman, I'da just told her to get back in that kitchen :mad::mad::mad:

Llamas
11-14-2010, 07:24 AM
Seriously, what is she doing... trying to pretend that the opinions of a woman matter... shit.

Static_Martyr
11-14-2010, 07:53 AM
It also extends to a more general question of why god creates people who are going to go to hell in the first place. Does he want hell to grow? Why doesn't he only create "good" people who will be saved and go to heaven?

That extends into a realm of apologetic theology called "Calvinism." Calvinism is the idea that God already knows who is going to Hell and who is going to Heaven, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Or, as wikipedia so confusingly states it:


The central assertion of these canons is that God is able to save every person upon whom he has mercy and that his efforts are not frustrated by the unrighteousness or the inability of humans.

Basically, if it *seems* like God is trying to "save" someone but it doesn't work, and they don't turn to God, then God didn't really mean to save them anyway.


When I let rip a particularly awesome fart and blame it on the dog some people might believe that it was truly the dog. But in reality it was and always will be my creation. No amount of lying can change the past. Your god's solution to his own fuck-ups is to simply deny responsibility? No wonder Republicans love your god so much.

Wow, I didn't even notice she said that Satan "wasn't God's creation anymore" :o


Seriously, what is she doing... trying to pretend that the opinions of a woman matter... shit.

Like I NO RITE?! I only spent like 5 posts trying to explain that to her...

Llamas
11-14-2010, 09:06 AM
That extends into a realm of apologetic theology called "Calvinism." Calvinism is the idea that God already knows who is going to Hell and who is going to Heaven, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Or, as wikipedia so confusingly states it:



Basically, if it *seems* like God is trying to "save" someone but it doesn't work, and they don't turn to God, then God didn't really mean to save them anyway.

This contradicts the descriptions of an omnipotent, all-knowing god. You say god *knows* who's going to heaven and hell, but why does he create the hell-goers in the first place?



Like I NO RITE?! I only spent like 5 posts trying to explain that to her...
womenz iz stupidz

For Real
11-14-2010, 09:31 AM
Guyz, it's Sunday. Instead of taking offense to your rude and hateful posts, I will just say:

God Bless You All Today! :D




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For anyone reading this thread, ask yourself this, "Who appears to be the happiest one with love inside?" Yep, me. :D

Static_Martyr
11-14-2010, 09:56 AM
This contradicts the descriptions of an omnipotent, all-knowing god. You say god *knows* who's going to heaven and hell, but why does he create the hell-goers in the first place?

Hey, I didn't say it made sense!

Besides, not all Evangelicals accept that line of theology. In fact, most that I've spoken to don't. The ones that do are mostly like For Real, who even otherwise seem to have no problem believing all kinds of contradictory details about god and the Bible. People who have degrees in theology 'n'stuff don't tend to subscribe to such thinking; it's more popular to believe that "everyone has the potential to be saved" and that nothing is decided yet with regard to that.

Of course, in my personal view, that still contradicts the idea of an all-knowing God. It's the old dilemma, "if God can tell us the future of our decisions, then we don't have free will because it's already been decided what we will do; if he can't tell us the future of our decisions, then he can't rightly be called 'all-knowing,' can he?"

Llamas
11-14-2010, 10:18 AM
"Who appears to be the happiest one with love inside?" Yep, me. :D
Ignorance is bliss!


The ones that do are mostly like For Real, who even otherwise seem to have no problem believing all kinds of contradictory details about god and the Bible. People who have degrees in theology 'n'stuff don't tend to subscribe to such thinking; it's more popular to believe that "everyone has the potential to be saved" and that nothing is decided yet with regard to that.

This reminds me of the Simpsons, when Flanders is talking to God, and he's like "I even believed all the stuff that contradicted other stuff!" Like, what more do you want from me?! :D


Of course, in my personal view, that still contradicts the idea of an all-knowing God. It's the old dilemma, "if God can tell us the future of our decisions, then we don't have free will because it's already been decided what we will do; if he can't tell us the future of our decisions, then he can't rightly be called 'all-knowing,' can he?"

Exactly. I think of everyone on this bbs, my thoughts about religion mesh most with yours.

wheelchairman
11-14-2010, 10:26 AM
"if God can tell us the future of our decisions, then we don't have free will because it's already been decided what we will do; if he can't tell us the future of our decisions, then he can't rightly be called 'all-knowing,' can he?"

Isn't that fairly simplistic though? Why wouldn't he simply know all possible outcomes, decisions, etc?

WebDudette
11-14-2010, 10:38 AM
People say that, but I feel like he has to know who my parents are and he has to know what would influence me as I grew up and how I would be affected by it. He should have a pretty good idea how I'd grow up to be. Just like he would know that pretty much everyone born in India, China, and most of the rest of Asia are not going to grow up to be Christian. So even if there is an all possible combination type thing, he gives some people a .001% chance of going to heaven while others born to the right situations have a much higher chance.

wheelchairman
11-14-2010, 03:54 PM
Heh so what's this, fate and free-will function like the dog tracks now?

Static_Martyr
11-14-2010, 04:08 PM
Isn't that fairly simplistic though? Why wouldn't he simply know all possible outcomes, decisions, etc?

Sure, that's possible, but if he knows all possible outcomes, then he knows exactly what it would take to change any person's mind about him --- they say "every man has his price, some are just more expensive than others;" I'd think the same would be basically true of the supernatural. So if we do take that for granted, then we can't really argue in god's defense that he is really, honestly doing everything in his power to "save" everyone, or that it's even possible to "save" everyone (something that, if untrue, would kind of defeat the purpose of evangelism in the first place).

If he knows our thoughts, then he knows that some people simply will not (or cannot -- it's not always easy to just 'decide' to believe something) be swayed by certain 'miracles' or events, and yet he still blames them for "rejecting" him based on that. What about people who sincerely have no belief, but maybe *want* to believe (or are at the very least genuinely open to believing), and are simply waiting for the right thing to happen to give them the grounds (in their own rational minds) on which to believe? Why has God not done something (or organized something, or sent someone) to move these people? As someone once asked me, "If God is real, then why are there agnostics?"

In my experience, evangelists like to accuse these types of people of "rejecting God" or of not being genuinely open to belief, but I think that's just as arrogant of a statement as many of the things Christians accuse atheists of saying that are "arrogant." If nothing else, it makes a presumption about the other person that the evangelist can't possibly know --- it's just the most convenient thing to assume that would most easily gel with the beliefs that "God is always right." And worse, it actually drives people away from religion because people who genuinely do have doubts are told that they don't and that they're just being willful, but since they know what's going on in their own minds, they immediately know that the evangelist is being dishonest, which leads one to ask, "If I can't trust them to make accurate judgments about my character, and I'm just a lowly human being, then why should I trust them to make judgments about the nature of God?"

EDIT: Also, if God knows all possible outcomes but still doesn't know what choice we will take (a necessity if we do have free will), then can he really be said to "know everything?"


This reminds me of the Simpsons, when Flanders is talking to God, and he's like "I even believed all the stuff that contradicted other stuff!" Like, what more do you want from me?!

It's funny....as many times as The Simpsons has taken digs at Christianity (I dunno if it's just because they dig at everybody sooner or later, or if they're targeting religion specifically, I don't watch it enough to know the difference), I once saw a pastor on TBN talk about how the Simpsons actually had a sort of conspiratorial agenda to promote Christianity. He laid out this whole episode about it. It was pretty amusing; I remember him pointing out that God, whenever he's in the show (which is rare, but I have seen it before), has five fingers, while every other character has less than five, which is supposed to mean that "God is real, even if the other characters aren't."

Make of that what you will :D


Exactly. I think of everyone on this bbs, my thoughts about religion mesh most with yours.

Give it time, I'm sure we can find something to arrogantly disagree and come to arms about :cool:

wheelchairman
11-14-2010, 06:42 PM
Sure, that's possible, but if he knows all possible outcomes, then he knows exactly what it would take to change any person's mind about him --- they say "every man has his price, some are just more expensive than others;" I'd think the same would be basically true of the supernatural. So if we do take that for granted, then we can't really argue in god's defense that he is really, honestly doing everything in his power to "save" everyone, or that it's even possible to "save" everyone (something that, if untrue, would kind of defeat the purpose of evangelism in the first place).

If he knows our thoughts, then he knows that some people simply will not (or cannot -- it's not always easy to just 'decide' to believe something) be swayed by certain 'miracles' or events, and yet he still blames them for "rejecting" him based on that. What about people who sincerely have no belief, but maybe *want* to believe (or are at the very least genuinely open to believing), and are simply waiting for the right thing to happen to give them the grounds (in their own rational minds) on which to believe? Why has God not done something (or organized something, or sent someone) to move these people? As someone once asked me, "If God is real, then why are there agnostics?"

In my experience, evangelists like to accuse these types of people of "rejecting God" or of not being genuinely open to belief, but I think that's just as arrogant of a statement as many of the things Christians accuse atheists of saying that are "arrogant." If nothing else, it makes a presumption about the other person that the evangelist can't possibly know --- it's just the most convenient thing to assume that would most easily gel with the beliefs that "God is always right." And worse, it actually drives people away from religion because people who genuinely do have doubts are told that they don't and that they're just being willful, but since they know what's going on in their own minds, they immediately know that the evangelist is being dishonest, which leads one to ask, "If I can't trust them to make accurate judgments about my character, and I'm just a lowly human being, then why should I trust them to make judgments about the nature of God?"

EDIT: Also, if God knows all possible outcomes but still doesn't know what choice we will take (a necessity if we do have free will), then can he really be said to "know everything?"
Man, why are you even asking me? Did I give the impression I was an authority.

I honestly don't care what evangelists think. I didn't grow up, nor have I ever been to the bible belt. They've never really been a part of my environment in any noticeable sense, or maybe I was oblivious, who knows. Religion isn't some logic puzzle I look at to pick apart and figure out the pieces, I simply don't care enough.

You also treat Christianity like a monolith, as though there were one approach and understanding. It depends entirely on the branch of Christianity, or even on the theological interpretation.

One group believes that man has communed through God with a series of covenants. This is called Covenant theology. Its somehow different from dispensation theology, but its been well over 5 years since I read anything about this, so really all I can remember is how similar they are. But they debate things as heatedly as neoliberals vs. neorealists in International Relations Studies (two in many ways very similar groups who disagree on everything.)

I bring this up because I want to underline how fucking amateur this entire debate sounds. It's why I hate hearing about religion, and its why I loathe atheists who seek it out in debate. (Don't worry Static, I don't hate or loathe you, I think you're just curious, but I don't got any answers.) In fact, I don't really understand how what you said relates to what I said.

I would argue that you act as though God were some person, and should be judged accordingly. Wouldn't God be about as foreign to us as extra-terrestials? On what scale would we then judge?

So yeah, I'm not gonna answer your questions, cause what the fuck do I know? I thought it was weird you brought up all those questions in the first place to one line. :p However both Dispensationalist Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_theology) and Covenant Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_Theology) have long wiki pages. Maybe you'll find the answers to your questions there. I doubt it, however I do imagine you'll find them interesting.

but I gotta ask, why are these questions so important to you? You're not religious, why do you care about the logic behind someone's faith? I don't know. Perhaps I would too if I still lived in the states.

EDIT: Upon closer reading, dispensationalist theology apparently deals with reconciling the old and new testaments. So suck it, you skepticsannotatedbible dorks. Yeah, I can smell you from a mile away.

Oh and suck it to all of you atheists with these questions who never bothered to actually go research theology but instead go and harass believers. I'm looking directly at people who say stuff like 'I'm so tired of knowing more about Christianity than most Christians do.' You can all suck it. That's EXACTLY like hating politics while not knowing anything about it. You're as good as For Real.

p.s. Sorry Static, I went off on a tangent. I am definitely not looking at you for the last paragraphs. In fact, I'm not sure if I'm looking at anyone in this thread.

Static_Martyr
11-14-2010, 07:26 PM
Man, why are you even asking me? Did I give the impression I was an authority.

:D No, it's cool, most of my questions were hypothetical. I was trying to demonstrate the frame of my logic going into this.


I honestly don't care what evangelists think. I didn't grow up, nor have I ever been to the bible belt. They've never really been a part of my environment in any noticeable sense, or maybe I was oblivious, who knows. Religion isn't some logic puzzle I look at to pick apart and figure out the pieces, I simply don't care enough.

You also treat Christianity like a monolith, as though there were one approach and understanding. It depends entirely on the branch of Christianity, or even on the theological interpretation.

It probably won't make sense to you, and it may even seem like an obsession to you, that I think so much about religion....I'm not sure where you live, but here in the U.S. Evangelical Christians are a powerful political force and we're confronted with conversations like this --- both at the local and national/political level --- on a very frequent basis, if not day-to-day then at least week-to-week. In America it's almost kind of a civic duty to have at least a rudimentary understanding of what Evangelical Christians think, because their opinions and reasoning are what drives so much of our political system. The entire gay marriage opposition, for example, is composed almost *entirely* of conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist Christians. Whether I like them or want to understand them or not (I don't like them but I do want to understand them), they are here and they aren't going anywhere for awhile.

So please understand, my questions weren't so much directed *specifically* at you, as they were responses to the kind of logic that I've come to expect as a response from someone in an internet debate. These (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=163) guys (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=156) here (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=155) are (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=137) probably (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=141) more in line with the kind of people that are prominent in the extreme right of American politics, the kind of people we hear from daily over here --- people like For Real, who sadly represent more of people in my age group in the U.S. today than you might be ready to believe.


I would argue that you act as though God were some person, and should be judged accordingly. Wouldn't God be about as foreign to us as extra-terrestials? On what scale would we then judge?

Well, the problem comes when humans try to speak on behalf of their god and then rationalize their own *very human* actions and beliefs by using god as a shield of sorts --- "This is what god wants, so it's okay for me to do this, even though it wouldn't be okay normally, or for anyone else." Think of what would happen if a normal person used their position of authority to ask for their constituents' personal bank information, and threatened them with spiritual reciprocation if they didn't? (http://vimeo.com/16359090) I guess you could say I care less about god and his nature than I do about how humans interact with god, and how we determine the difference between "a human interacting with god," and "a human who is using god as a rationalization for abusing power or people."

I'd argue that any real attempt to "personalize" God, or discuss his "responsibility" or "desire" for the world (as For Real has done), would place him in a situation where he was (at least on SOME level) subject to judgment. Saying that god is too foreign to discuss is fine --- it's just one more way of believing in or talking about god, and it's not even "wrong" --- it's just that all too often, people want to give their own personal idea of god this "human" treatment, saying things like "he wants us to do this," or, "he has the authority" to do this, but then cop out by saying that "he can't be described," or "he's beyond our understanding." I think it's natural for us to inquire, "why is that?" Because if we're being told we should do something "because god wants it," I think it's a very important thing that we understand where that authority comes from, and I also think it's bogus to say that we should obey some god or concept or ritual that we can, by nature, know nothing about. That would imply that power = moral authority, and as our world history has shown, that argument does not hold water in real life. And there are plenty of people who would be more than happy to apply philosophies that they've learned through theology to real life.

I grant you, at this point we're not talking about god specifically, so much as the nature of authority and a bunch of other philosophical hoo-doo. But once we get into the realm of applying Biblical and theological texts to society in the form of laws and moral codes, I think these are important issues to settle because if we accept philosophically flawed definitions of morality, it's going to show through somewhere down the line. So, I do think it matters.


EDIT: Upon closer reading, dispensationalist theology apparently deals with reconciling the old and new testaments. So suck it, you skepticsannotatedbible dorks. Yeah, I can smell you from a mile away.

I'm no theological expert (obviously), but I don't see how it's possible to NOT reconcile the Old and New Testaments in SOME way. I've heard the argument that the NT "cancels out" the OT, but there are several instances throughout the NT where Jesus makes it clear that he is *not* replacing or recanting the old laws and the covenant with God; as I understand it, the only real change he made to the covenant was remove the need for atonement blood sacrifice (by sacrificing himself).


p.s. Sorry Static, I went off on a tangent. I am definitely not looking at you for the last paragraphs. In fact, I'm not sure if I'm looking at anyone in this thread.

Aw, shit, I probably rant three times as long as you and four times as often! No worries, I like when people spill their thoughts for me to read :) At the very least it means they consider me worth responding to.

Paint_It_Black
11-15-2010, 12:17 AM
Ignorance is bliss!

I'd be more likely to say that insanity is bliss.


I would argue that you act as though God were some person, and should be judged accordingly. Wouldn't God be about as foreign to us as extra-terrestials? On what scale would we then judge?

I agree almost completely with this. I'm sure I come across as a fairly dedicated atheist most of the time but I'm really not. I'm agnostic. I don't know any answers. I doubt that real knowledge on spiritual concepts is even possible. I will criticize and make fun of anybody who claims to know something that most likely cannot be known. I don't personally believe in any god(s) because I feel that, as with anything else, not-believing should be the default state until there is credible evidence to justify a belief. Or at the very least some consistent internal logic within a theory. But anyway, I just wanted to say here that I agree completely that if there is some kind of god then that being would most likely be so alien to us, so superior to us or at least so different, that understanding would be impossible and judgement arbitrary.

For some reason I just enjoy discussing/debating/ranting about these kinds of things. I know how pointless it is. But I find it enjoyable anyway.

I would disagree just as wholeheartedly with anyone who claimed that there cannot be any kind of god as much as those who claim there must be. It's just that atheists don't usually require it. Even Richard Dawkins will admit that there could be a god. He doesn't believe in one because there's no evidence for it. But he will admit there could be. His position is really much the same as mine, I suspect. The admission that they can't know absolutely that they are correct is what makes atheists sane and differentiates them from the religious folks who will not even accept the possibility of there being no god(s). I think for people like me it's that insanity, that complete surrender to delusions, that willingness to forego all reason and let themselves believe whatever feels nicest, that's what causes me to be unable to sit silently by whenever someone brings up their religion. Well, and the internal inconsistencies which I would expect to find in probably all religions.

I always leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. Always and in all things. I try to make the right choices in life, I try to form the right opinions, but I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Certainty is anathema to knowledge. As odd as that might seem. Unshakable certainty in anything always bugs me and it just seems most evident when it comes to matters of spirituality, ironically a subject where it is least appropriate.

When I waste my time in threads like this it is with full knowledge that I'm not going to accomplish anything. I'm fine with that. I'm not actually trying to change the mind of the person I'm arguing with. I just enjoy the game.

My point in this thread was primarily just to say that even if I believed in something I wouldn't worship the Christian god. That's the only religion that I know anything about at all really so I can't speak about others. I went to a Christian school. I learnt enough to decide that I don't even like that god. If I even believed in this god I couldn't worship it. I was curious to see if I could get any new responses to my assertion that their god is the ultimate source of all evil. Now I know this leads me towards the realm of passing judgement on a god and brings me back again to Per's question that I quoted. On what scale would we judge a god? Well, on a human scale of course. It may not be possible to understand a god but we still have to judge in order to decide if that god is worth worshipping. Does merely being a god justify worship? I don't think so. It justifies fear and awe. But not worship. A god needs to be judged on their supposed actions just like anyone else and even if our human minds are not really up to the task we would still have to try because that's all we have. If a god wants our worship then he/she/it should earn it. I hate the idea that morality somehow comes from god(s) and we have to conform to it. I think morality comes from humans and our god(s) should be held accountable to our standards. The Christian god is a prick. I guess that's what I'm saying. I give a little leeway for being a god and all, but not much. Still a prick. From a human perspective. Which is the only perspective I'm capable of. And this is an argument I never really see anyone make. Opponents of religions seem to always just go for "your god doesn't exist" and I'd love to see more of "your god is an asshole how can you worship that?"

tl;dr I know, I know.

Edit: And when I ask questions like "how can you worship that" I'm partially hoping I've got it all wrong somehow. I'm truly offering them the chance to educate me, to show me what I'm missing. I'm not claiming I know more about their religion than they do. And this is also why I pick apart what they say instead of researching theology myself. I have no desire to research it myself. That wouldn't be fun. I've had my fill of it and didn't like it. But people like For Real offer us their own version. Her exact version couldn't be found in any theology book I'm sure. She has created her own reasoning and modifications. These are what I question and hold her accountable for. The burden is not on me to know what I'm talking about when all I'm doing is questioning what she is talking about. I'm not the one claiming to know anything. This is a defense to something Per said even though he said it wasn't really directed to anyone in this thread. I feel it's best to say it anyway because I'm aware I could be perceived as being in the group he described. I try not to cross that line but if I slip across I am happy to be called out on it. I like to be challenged. I like having to reconsider my opinions or actions. Whether I then realize I was wrong or become firmer in my belief that I was correct. Either result is beneficial.

Paint_It_Black
11-15-2010, 01:20 AM
Double post because the previous one is likely to be skipped due to length.

I don't understand why the idea of an all-knowing god is often considered incompatible with free will. I'm going to try to demonstrate why knowledge of what a person is going to do in no way interferes with their choice.

Yesterday I chose to order pizza and stay home playing computer games all day. Nobody besides me knew that I would choose this. It was free will.

Today you, the person reading this, knows that I did that. If you happen to have a time machine at your disposal you could go back a couple of days from now. You would be aware of my exact actions before I chose to make them. As long as you did not interfere in events then I would still choose to order pizza and stay home all day playing computer games. It would still be my choice. Still be my free will. Your knowledge would have no effect either way.

Since the omniscient god is usually considered to be omnipotent also it gets really easy to understand the concept. If I was this god, all I'd have to do is skip to the end of time and see how things turn out without me meddling. I would have all the knowledge at my disposal and humans would have done it all with free will. I could then go back and mix stuff up if I wanted. Maybe set a bush on fire here, leave some golden tablets there. Whatever. I could change things. But humans would react to these changes with their free will. I'd need to skip ahead again to see how it all played out this time. And if I was aiming for a specific goal I might have to do this countless times. Even just to achieve a simple desired result. And if I finally got the result I wanted through careful manipulation of events I could be said to have abused humanity's free will, certainly, but the free will was still present. They still made their choices. After endless trial and error I might discover how to get the desired result, but it would not be a case of making them do what I want exactly, not even then. It would be a case of carefully tailoring the circumstances so that they make the decisions I like. But they're still making the decisions. At this point it may seem like a subtle distinction since the end result is the same, but if the question is whether or not free will can exist with an omniscient god then the answer is clearly yes, it can. It doesn't necessarily have to exist, particularly if the god is omnipotent. Every single thought that appears in my mind could be scripted with only the illusion of having thought it myself. But it most definitely can exist.

If I were a god I would give people free will. They would be pretty fucking boring to watch without it. No fun to play with at all. I just thought I'd quickly add this in as a possible motive for why an all-knowing, all-powerful god would even bother. It's the only way I can think of that this kind of being could amuse itself. If there is some kind of god out there I would suspect we were created more or less just to pass the time. But of course this is just what I would do. And I don't usually think I'm a god.

tl;dr but on a different subject!

Static_Martyr
11-15-2010, 01:55 PM
I don't understand why the idea of an all-knowing god is often considered incompatible with free will. I'm going to try to demonstrate why knowledge of what a person is going to do in no way interferes with their choice.

The problem stems from the fact that, in order for God to be able to accurately predict the future (be it by going forward in time and looking, or by simply knowing), there has to be some kind of "set standard" for what will happen --- even if you consider multiple scenarios, what it amounts to is that we each have exactly one way that we will certainly react in a given scenario....as opposed to having a choice to offer one reaction out of many possible ones.

Example....if someone says something harsh to us, we appear to have a "choice" of going with choice A or choice B (to keep it simple) as a possible reaction. Even if God knows the possible outcomes of *both* scenarios, that implies that he knows in advance how the *other* person will respond. Unless he also knows all possible outcomes of all possible reactions of the other person. Then of course he'd have to know all possible reactions that you or anyone else would have to that, and so on and so forth ad infinatum.

What it all boils down to, though, is this dilemma:

1) If God knows all possible outcomes of our decisions, but not what decisions we will make, then he cannot truly see the future of our actions, which means that he's not truly all-knowing;

2) If God does know which decisions we will make before we make them, then that means our "free will" choices are in fact pre-determined, which in turn means that we never had a real "choice" in the first place, just the illusion of a choice.

For further example:


If I was this god, all I'd have to do is skip to the end of time and see how things turn out without me meddling.

Consider you and I, in the present, right now. What you said above indicates that there exists some theoretical "future" in which you and I have already made all of the decisions of our lives; God could go to that place and see what decisions we will make, meaning that without his interaction, we *certainly will* make those exact decisions. Meaning that there is nothing we can do without, say, God's intervention, that will keep us from making those decisions. There's not even the slightest chance that we will deviate; in some way, what we will do is already knowable, which means it's already fixed.

wheelchairman
11-15-2010, 11:54 PM
Alright. I guess I better reply at some point. :p

First things first, Static, have you edited your post? I don't remember the links in my first read through. Now I have to read it more carefully just in case I missed a whole lot. :p

I'm also going to try and keep myself as brief as possible as I'd rather not triple post.


It probably won't make sense to you, and it may even seem like an obsession to you, that I think so much about religion....I'm not sure where you live, but here in the U.S. Evangelical Christians are a powerful political force and we're confronted with conversations like this --- both at the local and national/political level --- on a very frequent basis, if not day-to-day then at least week-to-week. In America it's almost kind of a civic duty to have at least a rudimentary understanding of what Evangelical Christians think, because their opinions and reasoning are what drives so much of our political system. The entire gay marriage opposition, for example, is composed almost *entirely* of conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist Christians. Whether I like them or want to understand them or not (I don't like them but I do want to understand them), they are here and they aren't going anywhere for awhile.

So please understand, my questions weren't so much directed *specifically* at you, as they were responses to the kind of logic that I've come to expect as a response from someone in an internet debate. These guys here are probably more in line with the kind of people that are prominent in the extreme right of American politics, the kind of people we hear from daily over here --- people like For Real, who sadly represent more of people in my age group in the U.S. today than you might be ready to believe.

I grew up in Oregon. :cool: I know something of the political climate of the states. However I know next to nothing about life in the bible belt. Obviously Oregon is very different. I went to church in Oregon. The assistant minister was a lesbian, our youth group was told how there was enough food in the world for everyone, and that starvation exists due to inequal distribution. (This was a Presbyterian church btw, man I love Oregon.)

However its been 5 years since I've visited, and 10 since I lived there. All I know of the modern political atmosphere is what I've seen and heard on tv or from people I know. Nothing's first hand.

Something you might not have known, as far as American politics is concerned, evangelicalism's rise to power is fairly recent, happened with Reagan. (It existed before then of course, its political influence is the only thing that changed.)

It also perhaps has something to do with background. I've grown up with religion being more or less a private matter. Among my friends, among my family, whatever. I've said it before, but the whole polemical nature of the debate in the US is what I find bizarre. There is seemingly no middle ground. There are no rational atheists, and there are no reasonable Christians. Everyone has to be a nut. Or at least its the nuts who are the loudest.

Anyways, I'm going to skip a couple of your paragraphs mostly because I agree that abuse of power is not okay. I would also agree there is a place for everything, and religion and politics don't really belong together. I totally agree with that. I'm more bothered by what I view really as harassment of Christians for being Christian simply because of the Evangelical right wing's political power. (And if that's what you have a problem with, you are totally misfocused when discussing the logic behind belief. It'd be far more important to emphasize the importance of a separation between Church and state. Between religion and legislation.)

Denmark (where I live) is a pretty awesome example. We have a state church. It's subservient to the Danish state (not the other way around.) It doesn't really do anything, and the sermons can be quite interesting or enlightening. Or take Holland for example, that's a nation where the dominant government party is the Christian Democrats. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Appeal#Ideology_and_issues) (Click that link, its hilarious. They seem so fucking reasonable compared to Republicans, and yet for Dutch people they sound so annoying). They're center of the road, and I honestly couldn't tell you what the 'Christian' part is there for. They just seem like dorks to me. (Yeah that's the same Holland with the legalized weed. This party didn't ban weed or even really try. However they are assholes who banned indoor smoking of tobacco, but only tobacco. What is their problem.)

I'm digressing. I was trying to make a point that politics and religion shouldn't go together. And when they do, it should be under extremely moderate conditions. What I'm trying to say is that the relationship should be cooperative as opposed to antagonistic, this would be the difference between Denmark/Holland and the US.

Okay, this post is already ridiculously long.

Btw, crossexamined, that's a pretty good pun, you gotta give them that.
-------------------------

Alright, PIB.


I agree almost completely with this
That's cause you're a nerd.


I will criticize and make fun of anybody who claims to know something that most likely cannot be known. I don't personally believe in any god(s) because I feel that, as with anything else, not-believing should be the default state until there is credible evidence to justify a belief. Or at the very least some consistent internal logic within a theory. But anyway, I just wanted to say here that I agree completely that if there is some kind of god then that being would most likely be so alien to us, so superior to us or at least so different, that understanding would be impossible and judgement arbitrary.

Why though? I mean its fine that you look at everything with a critical mind (do you, cause that's easy to say and most people only ever pay lipservice to that notion.) but why should everyone else?

Why should religion make sense? I mean its called 'faith' for a reason. If people draw something beneficial for themselves from this, who are you to question or mock them for that? Actually, I'd say you have a lot of gall in this instance.

Now I want to differentiate between people who are religous, and people who are shovey as shit about their religion. One group might deserve mocking, the others don't. One group would deserve constructive criticism, the others don't. This differentiation is vital, and its a little lacking in your post so far.


I think for people like me it's that insanity, that complete surrender to delusions, that willingness to forego all reason and let themselves believe whatever feels nicest, that's what causes me to be unable to sit silently by whenever someone brings up their religion. Well, and the internal inconsistencies which I would expect to find in probably all religions.
You're talking about the majority of the population of the world. I don't know, most people I know seem fairly reasonable. People who believe in God as well as those who don't. In fact, being reasonable seems to have little to do with their religion or lack thereof.

Now being unable to sit silently when someone talks about religion...well you can talk of their insanity but this sounds a bit neurotic. :p Don't worry, I recognize hyperbole when I see it.

I don't know though. I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt of not being a douche, and then you say stuff like this:


"your god is an asshole how can you worship that?"
Like.. what is your problem? You're an asshole, how can you be like that? :p

Again, I don't live in Kansas. I never went to a Christian school. The crazies were people I saw on TV, not people I knew. I've only ever known Christians who I've respected and who were intelligent, thoughtful and educated people.

On the other hand, how often are you going to use your trauma to justify your prejudice of those who are religious? You see it often enough, both you and Static talk about your religious environments as the background that informs your views. That's no real excuse for painting all of Christendom with the same brush, or for acting like a douche.


I'm partially hoping I've got it all wrong somehow.
Aren't you a little old to be this hopefully naive? I don't really believe you when you say this. Or at least it doesn't sound plausible.

And then you go from sounding like a reasonable, critical thinker to admitting that it's not for your own interest in learning, but for fun:

I have no desire to research it myself. That wouldn't be fun.
I mean, I wouldn't have included you in the group before. Or perhaps I would've liked to pretend you weren't. But you gotta admit, you're saying some ridiculously arrogant stuff. Or at least from where I'm sitting it seems that way. I could be completely misreading you as this is a rather touchy topic.

Anyways, as for your free will argument. Don't you think thats awfully linear? Why wouldn't God exist simultaneously in the now and the future, or simultaneously in all possible futures? Like the Prophets. :p

I mean one thing is to be an atheist. But to use these arguments is only showing a lack of creativity! :p Nah but seriously, if God were to be so foreign, we'd have to stop thinking of him in these 3 dimensional terms. If he were omniscient or omnipotent then surely he wouldn't exist so linearly.

I don't know where I read this, but someone priest once said God is like a chair that has no top. (Ie incomprehensible). I think I like that. Although I'm certainly misquoting it now.

wheelchairman
11-15-2010, 11:56 PM
Holy shit that all fit in one post. Although I had to disable the smileys since you're only allowed 4 images (I had 7.)

I used so many smileys because I specifically wanted to show that I wasn't angry.

Llamas
11-16-2010, 03:33 AM
The problem stems from the fact that, in order for God to be able to accurately predict the future (be it by going forward in time and looking, or by simply knowing), there has to be some kind of "set standard" for what will happen --- even if you consider multiple scenarios, what it amounts to is that we each have exactly one way that we will certainly react in a given scenario....as opposed to having a choice to offer one reaction out of many possible ones.

Example....if someone says something harsh to us, we appear to have a "choice" of going with choice A or choice B (to keep it simple) as a possible reaction. Even if God knows the possible outcomes of *both* scenarios, that implies that he knows in advance how the *other* person will respond. Unless he also knows all possible outcomes of all possible reactions of the other person. Then of course he'd have to know all possible reactions that you or anyone else would have to that, and so on and so forth ad infinatum.

What it all boils down to, though, is this dilemma:

1) If God knows all possible outcomes of our decisions, but not what decisions we will make, then he cannot truly see the future of our actions, which means that he's not truly all-knowing;

2) If God does know which decisions we will make before we make them, then that means our "free will" choices are in fact pre-determined, which in turn means that we never had a real "choice" in the first place, just the illusion of a choice.

Plus there's the point that people claim god is so loving and benevolent. People claim that if you believe in Jesus and pray and go to church and stuff, god will take care of you and protect you and give you what you want. Yet bad things happen to so many of these people... and they argue that with, "God has a reason for everything." So god knows these bad things are going to happen... they're pre-determined... some of them could be out of free will, others are things that just HAPPEN. "He works in mysterious ways," they like to say. So he knew how many people would be killed by Hurricane Katrina. And I'm sure that a great deal of those people were god-fearing, church-going Christians. Yet he still allowed this to happen?

Static_Martyr
11-16-2010, 04:37 AM
First things first, Static, have you edited your post? I don't remember the links in my first read through. Now I have to read it more carefully just in case I missed a whole lot. :p

I may have, but I don't think so....if I did it was within a minute or two of posting, as it doesn't say "last edited on..."


Something you might not have known, as far as American politics is concerned, evangelicalism's rise to power is fairly recent, happened with Reagan. (It existed before then of course, its political influence is the only thing that changed.)

Yes, it's largely accredited to Reagan but also to the rise of groups like Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority," and other megachurch pastors of the era like Jimmy Swaggert. Although this isn't the first "big revival" in our nation's history --- around the turn of the century (early 1900's that is), a minister named John Edward (not to be confused with the phony psychic) became fairly popular for what is now known as the "fire-and-brimstone" theology, that we're all a bunch of basically unsalvageable bastards and that the only reason we haven't been compltely destroyed by god so far is because god has mercy for us; he famously compared the fate of the human soul before god to "a spider dangling over an open flame from a single thread." I believe this steady progression of religious "fear politics" has been in the works for much longer than its recent rise to popularity.


It also perhaps has something to do with background. I've grown up with religion being more or less a private matter. Among my friends, among my family, whatever. I've said it before, but the whole polemical nature of the debate in the US is what I find bizarre. There is seemingly no middle ground. There are no rational atheists, and there are no reasonable Christians. Everyone has to be a nut. Or at least its the nuts who are the loudest.

There was a guest on Conan O'Brien who spoke about this not too long ago (like a year or so)....he was talking about John Hagee's ministry, largely regarded as one of the most extreme in the country (he supported going to pre-emptive war with Iran over Israel, for instance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf-Su-xZVU)). The idea was that the growing popularity of extremism (on both sides) can largely be attributed to the extremism of the Christian right.

The entire extreme right movement began as a completely uncompromising, "putting-our-foot-down" stance against every other branch of political thought; as a result, any effort on which the Christian right unanimously disagrees (such as homosexual marriage, or certain war efforts) gets almost completely stonewalled politically. As a result, officials on the other side lose the ability to truly represent that portion of the population (because you either represent ONLY them, or NONE of them; they won't let you represent some of their interests, because if you don't represent all of them they discount you and reject you as their representative). This leads to the alienation of the extremist population from the mainstream, which the extremists then use against moderates to show how they are being "discriminated against" by the mainstream, when in fact it is their own uncompromising ideals that lead them to both be rejected, and to reject others unconditionally. The natural result of this is that the other side is forced to stand up more powerfully for any case with which the extreme right disagrees --- this gives the appearance of an "extreme left" and an "extreme right" going to "war" with each other, politically. And naturally, there are plenty of idiots (liberal AND conservative) who are more than happy to parrot whatever popular soundbyte is being thrown around, further contributing to the atmosphere of "uneducated morons fighting over dumb shit."

FTR, I'm not saying the left in our country is perfect or even good; the left here is a complete and utter mess. What I *am* saying is that there's a case to be made that this atmosphere of polarized extremism in the U.S. is a direct result of the uncompromising, religious-zealot attitude of the more powerful representatives of the extremist right, and the huge amount of support they get from constituents.


I'm digressing. I was trying to make a point that politics and religion shouldn't go together. And when they do, it should be under extremely moderate conditions. What I'm trying to say is that the relationship should be cooperative as opposed to antagonistic, this would be the difference between Denmark/Holland and the US.

I'd agree with that statement...I mean, it's a reasonable position to take.


Btw, crossexamined, that's a pretty good pun, you gotta give them that.

:D Yeah, I thought it was clever. That's part of what makes it so unsettling to me, though, is that some of the stuff they say over there is not funny at all --- the juxtaposition of humor with righteous political hatred is just kind of disturbing. Scroll to the bottom of the comments on this topic (http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=165#comment-18631), and you'll find a guy defending slavery in the Bible.

Paint_It_Black
11-16-2010, 12:31 PM
Static, I still don't see any reason why it's not free will. I still don't see why it's not a choice, even if some god knows exactly what coice we will make, and even if we always make the same choice under the exact same circumstances. We're still making the choices.



Why though? I mean its fine that you look at everything with a critical mind (do you, cause that's easy to say and most people only ever pay lipservice to that notion.) but why should everyone else?

I do my best. That's also easy to say, but I really, truly do. I do it because I think it's the only logical way to be. Everyone else does not have to be the same. I merely wish they were.


Why should religion make sense? I mean its called 'faith' for a reason. If people draw something beneficial for themselves from this, who are you to question or mock them for that? Actually, I'd say you have a lot of gall in this instance.

Well I like to think that everything should make sense if you're going to believe in it. And yes, I know it's called "faith" for a reason. But I don't personally understand the concept. I mean this literally. I don't think I've ever experienced it. I can barely comprehend the notion. It's so alien to me. It sounds ludicrous though. I don't consider myself as having some kind of special right to question and/or mock others. I believe everyone has that right. I try never to start it though. I don't go out looking for an argument. But when someone puts their opinions and beliefs out there, especially if it is in an intentionally offensive manner, I feel that's an open invitation. But getting back to wehy it should make sense...I think perhaps it wouldn't bother me at all if they admitted that it doesn't make sense. Then I'd say "oh, ok then".


Now I want to differentiate between people who are religous, and people who are shovey as shit about their religion. One group might deserve mocking, the others don't. One group would deserve constructive criticism, the others don't. This differentiation is vital, and its a little lacking in your post so far.

Fair enough. I probably should have differentiated more. I'll be entirely clear now. I think they're all crazy. But if they don't direct it at me or create some form of open invitation I leave them alone. This is actually part of why I get onto these kinds of topics so much online, because in real life I almost never have an appropriate opportunity to do so.


You're talking about the majority of the population of the world. I don't know, most people I know seem fairly reasonable. People who believe in God as well as those who don't. In fact, being reasonable seems to have little to do with their religion or lack thereof.

In matters aside from religion, yes. I'm not disputing that. But unfortunately religion touches on a lot of real issues. Would abortion even be an issue in the US if the majority of the population were atheist? I feel it gets in the way, even for many reasonable people.


I don't know though. I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt of not being a douche, and then you say stuff like this:

Like.. what is your problem? You're an asshole, how can you be like that? :p

I am kind of a douche. I'm comfortable with that most of the time. But, relating to what you quoted, I just think that a god should be...better...if you're going to worship it.


On the other hand, how often are you going to use your trauma to justify your prejudice of those who are religious? You see it often enough, both you and Static talk about your religious environments as the background that informs your views. That's no real excuse for painting all of Christendom with the same brush, or for acting like a douche.

I paint them all with the crazy brush, but I differentiate massively aside from that. Some are great people, some are not. They have the full range, certainly.

Yeah, I'm prejudiced to a certain degree. I would not be so douchey about the whole thing if I wasn't, that's true. Not that I particularly think being a little douchey is all that bad. Just a little. But anyway, my actual thoughts and opinions do not stem from prejudice. Only perhaps the way I express them. There will be a little more on this later though.


Aren't you a little old to be this hopefully naive? I don't really believe you when you say this. Or at least it doesn't sound plausible.

Actually, it's not that. I enjoy acting arrogant and douchey from time to time because it's just fun. I always assumed that intelligent people could tell it was an act. In reality I don't think particularly highly of myself. And this is the reason for why I hope. When I don't get something, like the entire concept of faith, I keep hoping that it's because I'm an idiot who has missed something glaringly obvious that the vast majority of all other humans throughout all time could somehow easily understand. I don't believe I'm particularly special or gifted and so it seems wise to keep looking for something I may have missed. I also would like to have faith myself. It looks nice. So yeah, part of me hopes I've missed something and will suddenly get it. Does this make sense now?


And then you go from sounding like a reasonable, critical thinker to admitting that it's not for your own interest in learning, but for fun:

I assumed you'd get that that was only semi-serious. I do have an interest in learning. I have this interest because it is fun. Some things are not so much fun to learn though. In this particular example the only reason I could possibly have for learning more is to be more douchey. To throw their own scripture in their faces and whatnot. Because I have already decided that I am incapable of faith there would be no reason for me to learn more details of any religion other than to attack them. And typically what I comment on is the nature of faith itself. I do not need to know specificaly what they have faith in to do this. It's all the same to me. None of them can prove anything (since they aren't even about proof) and so to me researching exactly what they believe would be a monumentaly boring waste of time. Besides, as you yourself have pointed out, there are so many variations. If I feel like criticizing specifically what one particular person believes I'll let them simply tell me first exactly what that is. And as long as it doesn't glaringly contradict itself I'll be fine with it. Except I'll still feel they must be crazy because of that whole faith concept that I keep going on about. The one I just don't get.


I mean, I wouldn't have included you in the group before. Or perhaps I would've liked to pretend you weren't. But you gotta admit, you're saying some ridiculously arrogant stuff. Or at least from where I'm sitting it seems that way. I could be completely misreading you as this is a rather touchy topic.

Well, I thought it would be obvious that I was somewhat trolling For Real because she's a bitch. I expect I meant everything I said (don't remember exactly), but I was intentionally saying it in the most offensive way I could. In general though it's hard not to get douchey on a subject like this. As you said, it is touchy. If I perceive the other side as being arrogant and offensive I will play the same game. I am also capable of having an entirely humble discussion on the subject. That usually only happens privately though, in a one-on-one conversation. The people who want to talk about religion on the internet don't usually seem willing to have that kind of conversation even if I was.

A hell of a lot of this is just an internet thing. I know I keep saying variations on this, but I'm truly surprised you didn't assume that. I say ridiculously arrogant things in all manner of threads, not just ones dealing with religion. It's just a game to me. I thought you'd get that. I always thought you do the same thing. Perhaps it's just harder to recognize the act when I'm saying things you know I really do believe. I'm just never entirely serious even when talking about things I actually care about. That's just me. I don't take anything entirely seriously and everything is a game to me, even important things that actually matter. I exaggerate and I act and I have a good time with it.


Anyways, as for your free will argument. Don't you think thats awfully linear? Why wouldn't God exist simultaneously in the now and the future, or simultaneously in all possible futures? Like the Prophets. :p

God certainly could! My linear argument was only one possibility. None of that changes my point though. None of those possibilites makes free will an impossibility.


Nah but seriously, if God were to be so foreign, we'd have to stop thinking of him in these 3 dimensional terms. If he were omniscient or omnipotent then surely he wouldn't exist so linearly.

Definitely agree. I say things like this all the time. It's part of why I expect that if such a being does exist it would have to be inherently unknowable to us. How could we understand it? How could we relate? It's a major part of why I'm agnostic. Claiming to understand such a being seems monumentally arrogant to me. Talk about the hubris of mankind.

It's quite difficult to pull off being an arrogant agnostic. Yeah, I might be arrogant when scoffing at people's beliefs. But how can that even be a drop in the ocean compared to their arrogance of thinking they know the unknowable?

Omni
11-16-2010, 01:14 PM
Aren't you a little old to be this hopefully naive? I don't really believe you when you say this. Or at least it doesn't sound plausible.


I'm not so sure I agree with this bit. I would guess that anyone in the situation of an agnostic or atheist (even if they wouldn't admit it) would be inwardly hopeful that they're wrong. Sure, it may sound a little out of his age range to have an attitude like that, but the matter of where you go after you die, or the state of your salvation is entirely different from any worldly subject. The topic of death must be incredibly scary or depressing for some people with a stance of skepticism of theology. The thought of going nowhere is especially chilling, even moreso considering the fact that when you're on your deathbed, no matter how many comforting, caring people are present with you, death is something you go through entirely alone.

Static_Martyr
11-16-2010, 01:16 PM
Static, I still don't see any reason why it's not free will. I still don't see why it's not a choice, even if some god knows exactly what coice we will make, and even if we always make the same choice under the exact same circumstances. We're still making the choices.

Because if we *always* make the exact same choice under the exact same circumstances, then that means it's the circumstances which cause us to act that way, not some decision we make independently of our circumstances --- similar in principle to the "DNA defense" used in criminal cases. The existence of free will would force us to say, "it's *likely* that so-and-so will make [x] decision, but he could suddenly decide to act in a way that is inconsistent with what we believe about him, so it's not for certain." Keep in mind, what differentiates man from machine is the ability to function illogically, which is to say that he can choose to either allow his circumstances to influence his decision or to do the opposite (or to mix and match the two). If only one result is ultimately possible, then how is man any different from machine, even if man has some "hypothetical" free will?

Think of it this way: you're playing a video game, like a rail shooter, where the entire game is played on tracks...you play the game from start to finish. Now, you know everything that is *certainly* going to happen on your next playthrough, because you know it's on rails and will not change. This is what would be required of an entity that could "see the future" of our decisions --- he could even be in a similar role as the gamer, able to move back and forth through the timeline and see what will happen and then make adjustments to his/her game plans based on that.

You could say that the characters are programmed with 'free will' but that, for whatever reason, they will *always* "choose" to make the exact same decision in the exact same circumstances throughout every playthrough....but then that undermines the definition of "free will." If, for example, there exists a situation in the future where I will make an important life-changing decision, right now I can say that this decision has not been made. And so it can't truly be known what this decision will be, by me or by anyone else. That is what makes it a free will decision --- that its outcome is not known until it happens, that any scenario is possible. If there is *any way* to discern the outcome of this decision before it is made, then we can make a case that the decision was 'pre-determined.'

You can say, "we're still using our free will to make that choice," but the way I see it, if there was no way that I could've made a different choice on my own, then it's not really free will, it's pre-destiny.


I do my best. That's also easy to say, but I really, truly do. I do it because I think it's the only logical way to be.

I'm not criticizing or addressing the rest of this comment, but I just wanted to say that I think being "logical" all of the time is greatly overrated. Yes, I think there is value to logic, but not all aspects of humanity are logical, or are *meant* to be logical --- morality, for instance. I'm not disturbed by a gruesome/violent murder in a movie scene because I look at the scene and think, "murder is wrong, therefore I should logically be offended by this," and then choose to be uncomfortable. These are all subconscious, innate reactions that are not entirely in my control.


The topic of death must be incredibly scary or depressing for some people with a stance of skepticism of theology. The thought of going nowhere is especially chilling, even moreso considering the fact that when you're on your deathbed, no matter how many comforting, caring people are present with you, death is something you go through entirely alone.

I don't think that's necessarily true; I'm not afraid of dying any more than I'm afraid of going to sleep. The fact that my life will cease one day hasn't ever really bothered me since I accepted that it's a part of nature. Whether or not I worry about it, it will still happen, so I don't see the point in trying to decide whether I'm "cool with it" or not. I mean, I don't do that with any other aspect of nature --- I don't worry about whether or not it's "okay" that I'll get sunburned if I go in the sun without adequate sunscreen, or whether or not I can "accept" the fact that I have to breathe constantly in order to survive, even though it's really inconvenient at times and it'd be nice if I didn't have to.

I mean no offense to anyone in particular, but I do think it takes a special kind of arrogance for a person to say, "there logically has to be something after death, solely because I'm scared of what will happen if there isn't," just as it would be arrogant of an atheist or something to say, "there CAN'T be a god, because god is a dick." How we feel about the afterlife will not change whether it's there or not at all; it's not how I feel about it that makes me believe the way I do about it.

Omni
11-16-2010, 01:42 PM
I mean no offense to anyone in particular, but I do think it takes a special kind of arrogance for a person to say, "there logically has to be something after death, solely because I'm scared of what will happen if there isn't," just as it would be arrogant of an atheist or something to say, "there CAN'T be a god, because god is a dick." How we feel about the afterlife will not change whether it's there or not at all; it's not how I feel about it that makes me believe the way I do about it.


I'm not saying an afterlife has to exist because humans are inconvienced by anything else. I'm not even saying everyone is afraid of death. I'm not particularly afraid of death, but I say that now at 22 years old. If/when I'm 70, on my last leg after a bout with cancer or something, maybe it'll be put into a different perspective. It's easy to scoff at death with some perceived amount of distance between life and death. I think death is just a scary thing to most people, so it makes sense to at least be hopeful.

I'm just saying, if someone has lived a life full of happy memories and moments, I could see how the thought of it all being ripped away with no more left might be frightening to think about. And arrogant or not, it's pretty common for people to cling to a religion in promise of an afterlife. I wouldn't hold it against someone to secretly hope they're wrong about no life after death.

For Real
11-16-2010, 11:15 PM
I thought your god created everything? If anything was created that he did not intend then he is not perfect. I thought your god was supposed to be a perfect being?

God created everything, including free will.


I thought your angels were never given free will? Isn't that supposed to be for man alone? If angels were not given free will then your god directly forced this poor angel to become Satan.

Angels have free will, but not in the sense that us humans do. We learn and decide as we live out our years. Angels have immense knowledge already bestowed upon them. We live in a place between heaven and hell, so we must decide which way we want to go. Angels already live in heaven, so therefore they are very happy to be living in God's glory. Only a very blatant decision to turn against happiness could have occured. Why would Lucifer do this? Rebellion. He took 1/3 of the angels with him on his descent. Who would want to do that? Who would want to deliberately be unhappy? This ties in with the unforgiveable sin - to sin against the holy spirit. God extends Himself through His holy spirit. When we refuse the holy spirit, we refuse to be happy. That is a sin. It's unthinkable. It's illogical. It's insane. Anyone who wants to be unhappy is insane. I, personally, want to be happy. Therefore, I am not insane. Anyone who deliberately 'plays' sides to a conversation for an outcome is attempting to play God/Satan. You can't do that. It's not your place - it's not your role. If you are deliberately saying stuff that you don't really believe in just for shock, deliberate ambiguity, or to force a more extreme response so as to make a contrast for clarity sake, then you are not thinking about your moral obligation to love. In any instance of healing, or of getting to a point of peace, firstly one must not incur harm. We cannot play God. We cannot play Devil - who can explain extreme evil? Furthermore, who would want to? Conversely, who can explain extreme good? Furthermore, once you are in the grace and presence of God, and you are happy, why would you want to try and explain Him? The need for explanation would fall away. In this life, we have problems. We have joy and happiness too. It's only when faced with problems that we tend to analyze - to look for reasoning, to use logic. But when you're happy, do you attempt to look for reasoning? Of course not, because you are happy. Ever notice how fast time goes by when things are running smoothly? "Time flies when you're having fun" And so it will be that way in heaven too.


Uh, isn't your god supposed to know everything? If he doesn't know everything how can you have absolute trust in him? If he doesn't know everything he is capable of making monumental fuckups. Which of course I've already proven that he has, so this should be a moot point by now.

How did you prove anything? Were you there when Lucifer defied God?


Oh, see, now he's all-knowing again. You can't even keep your own nonsense consistent, can you?

A case of projection. Classic.


Your all-knowing god needed to perform a test. You don't see a problem with that?

Needed to? I don't think he needed to. I think he wanted to so that us humans would have a testing ground to help make us greatful of heaven. Perhaps Lucifer took it all for granted, because he never experienced this testing ground called Earth.


Created with design flaws that he was then punished for possessing. These design flaws, by the way, were really just that he was too much like your god. Your god is full of himself. Your god wants to be a god. Your god wants to be worshipped and adored. Apparently it's ok for him but not for anyone else.

God is uncreated. He is the creator. A created being can never be God. Does it makes sense that something which is created by the master, would then become the master? Would you want the position of "God" to be taken over by Lucifer, an angel, inferior to God Himself? Did Lucifer make you? Does Lucifer know all the intricate detail of you? Of course not, because he is not your maker.


But your god could have made us perfect from the start, right? There was no need for all of this. So either your god couldn't make us perfect or he's just playing with us for his own amusement.

Free will can be a difficult thing to possess. But at some point, after having made mostly good decisions, God rewards and lightens our load, and we thank Him. We are dependent on Him. You want to be dependent on Him, because the alternative is not good.


Please pay attention now. Right here you fully admit that Satan does not have free will.

No. You pay attention. My statement that Satan is jealous of our Free Will does not imply that Satan is without free will himself. He has chosen his predicament. The part that he is jealous of, is the fact that our Free Will is here on Earth - a testing ground, a learning place. When we get to heaven, that glory will be earned. Satan was given everything that we are working for. Here's an analogy: it's like the spoiled child who grows up expecting everything to be given to him without having to ever get a job. But, if his "Dad" (God) is wise, then he will make that child work for everything so as to instill greatfulness in his heart.


You seem to like to say that your god created free will but did not create sin. Sin was created by beings who misused their free will. Ok. That's dumb, but ok, for sake of argument let's say I'm ok with that. Your god is still the ultimate source of all evil in the world.

No. Satan is the ultimate source of all evil in the world.


You worship the ultimate source of evil. I hope your conscience is fine with that. Mine wouldn't be. It's probably fortunate for me that I don't believe your god exists. It's bad enough believing I live in a pointless universe but it would be oh so much worse to believe I lived in a universe created by your god. Hell is probably the most generous thing your god has ever given us. A place that's free of him. I'm comforted to know that if I'm wrong in what I believe and you are (against all sense and logic) somehow correct then I actually still win. I get to go to hell.

Winning is not going to hell. You're the one who is not making sense. Truest victory will be in heaven.


That's way better than just ceasing to exist like what I expect to happen, and infinitely better than having to spend eternity with your god. The source of all evil in the world.

I'm sorry, but you're very deceived.


If you ignore everything I've just said I'd like you to answer this one question. Deep down, somewhere really buried down deep, do you know that you're delusional? I'm not saying this merely because you have faith. I'm saying this because your own personal set of beliefs clearly lacks any consistent internal logic.

Faith defies logic.


You make it up as you go along depending on what you need it to be at the time.

Truest, demonstrated christianity is faith in action.


You contradict yourself constantly.

What appears to be contradiction, is really your own dirty window. Clean the glass. Afterwards, look again.


Are you in any way aware that you do this? On a scale of one to ten, how crazy are you?

I would hope it would be a 10. God's realm is not of this world.

How can one apply a set of physics (known to the universe that we live in) to God's heaven? Heaven exists outside of this universe. The universe was created. God and His heaven have always existed.

For Real
11-16-2010, 11:28 PM
I got the impression that she only wants to win arguments, not to be relective, or coherent. That's also why reasoning with her is kinda pointless.

I want to win souls for God through faith in action. Not sayin' I'm perfect, of course I'm not. Just sayin' that I try really hard and that I want infinite happiness for myself, for my loved ones, and for my enemies.

Paint_It_Black
11-16-2010, 11:42 PM
That is what makes it a free will decision --- that its outcome is not known until it happens, that any scenario is possible. If there is *any way* to discern the outcome of this decision before it is made, then we can make a case that the decision was 'pre-determined.'

I still don't agree. I don't believe that free will is necessarily invalidated even if the outcome can be predetermined. I can watch a recorded football match and know the outcome, but I'm still watching the players make decisions. The choices I'm watching them make are in no way affected by the fact that I know what they're going to do. I didn't force them to make those choices. I simply know what choices they will make as I watch because for me it has already happened. But for them, at that moment, it had not already happened. And that's what matters, I believe. It's all relative.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the free will thing I think. I still maintain that regardless of anything, it's all a choice. But I'm begining to suspect we define free will differently. I think perhaps we have different ideas on what it actually means to make a choice. For me, even if I will always make the same choice under the same circumstances, it's still a choice. I'm still forming the decision in my own mind. And of course it is not actually guaranteed that I will always make the same choice. Maybe I would and maybe I wouldn't. Unfortunately it's impossible for us mere mortals to test it. And I'm still not stating that we absolutely do have free will. Just that I believe it's perfectly possible that we could. But yeah, I think we define what a choice is differently.


I'm not criticizing or addressing the rest of this comment, but I just wanted to say that I think being "logical" all of the time is greatly overrated. Yes, I think there is value to logic, but not all aspects of humanity are logical, or are *meant* to be logical --- morality, for instance. I'm not disturbed by a gruesome/violent murder in a movie scene because I look at the scene and think, "murder is wrong, therefore I should logically be offended by this," and then choose to be uncomfortable. These are all subconscious, innate reactions that are not entirely in my control.

I aim to be as logical as possible within the constraints of being human. I know I cannot be an entirely logical machine. But my goal is to be as close to it as possible. I would like to maximize the use of my mind and minimalize my animal instincts as much as possible. Yes, I want to be a Vulcan.



These are all subconscious, innate reactions that are not entirely in my control.

Wanting to control those reactions is the first step to achieving control. It can be worked on if you wish to do so.


The topic of death must be incredibly scary or depressing for some people with a stance of skepticism of theology. The thought of going nowhere is especially chilling, even moreso considering the fact that when you're on your deathbed, no matter how many comforting, caring people are present with you, death is something you go through entirely alone.

Not particularly scary, but highly depressing, yes.


I wouldn't hold it against someone to secretly hope they're wrong about no life after death.

I'd hold it against them for keeping it secret. Why try to hide it? There's no shame in it. Who would actually enjoy believing there is most likely nothing after we die? I do believe that, but I don't have to like it. It would be weird if I liked it.

For Real
11-16-2010, 11:47 PM
After reading all of this thread (and only about half of For Reals posts, because I don't have the patience of a fucking Saint, or disabled persons carer), I have come to the conclusion that in this boards very long, and very rich history of idiotic on a maniacal scale fucktards, For Real has got to be one of the stupidest people this board has ever encountered. I mean that is some serious idiocy.

Actually, it is you who is being idiotic. God sends a saint amongst the rock 'n roll world, and you turn a deaf ear? Or worse, you turn away? Do you know how many prophetic dreams God has given me that have all turned out to be true? Many.

"In those days, I will pour out my spirit on all flesh. Your old men will dream dreams, and your handmaidens will prophesy."


I'll apologise directly if you're any younger than like 15, because you use the reasoning and logic of a young, niaeve and not particularly bright teenager, maybe even younger than that, and if you are a young teenager that's fair enough, I'd be willing to speak to you in another 5 years and see how you've come along. But if you're any older than that, there is no hope, and you are one of the stupidest individuals I've ever had the displeasure of reading of their thoughts.

lol.

"To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you must become like a little child"

:p


I'm not even going to take up any argumentative stance or points on what's been said in the thread, because as great of a job Per and Richard have done of exposing your mentality already, I fear all of their efforts are completely in vain.

"Per" and "Richard" are like the theologians in the temple during the time of Jesus. They stand around and speak philosophically just for the pleasure of hearing themselves speak eloquently.


It's exactly what WCM said, you don't argue like the rest of us to hopefully gain some form of enlightenment or at least better understanding of the other persons perspective. Or even to reach some kind of a concensus, you argue to win, regardless of how insane you sound.

I argue to win souls. Time is of the essence. Hopefully something I've written here will resonate with unbelievers so as to win them over.


I'm looking forward to whatever scripture you use to reply to this thread,

"To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you must become like a little child"


but I'm looking forward even more to the day you learn to think for yourself.

And who is is that you think is doing my thinking for me? God? Satan? Government spies?

My thinking is exercised by my Free Will. My thinking is shaped by my choices that I made yesterday, last year, last decade, and last century. My thinking is also shaped by what is in my heart. And my heart is shaped by what is in my soul.

How can the spirit take direction from the heart?
How can the spirit take direction from the mind?
Is not the spirit above the body and the mind?

Feed your soul with the things of God. As the spirit goes, so goes the mind, the heart, and the body.

Paint_It_Black
11-17-2010, 12:03 AM
They stand around and speak philosophically just for the pleasure of hearing themselves speak eloquently.

Oh, yeah, I absolutely do that. Thanks for the compliment.

Anyway, I still have massive problems with a lot of what you're saying, but anything beyond this would be mere repetition. I'm willing to agree to disagree now. Especially now that you've admitted that logic and consistency have nothing to do with it. Apparently we just value different things.

Static_Martyr
11-17-2010, 04:58 AM
I still don't agree. I don't believe that free will is necessarily invalidated even if the outcome can be predetermined. I can watch a recorded football match and know the outcome, but I'm still watching the players make decisions. The choices I'm watching them make are in no way affected by the fact that I know what they're going to do. I didn't force them to make those choices. I simply know what choices they will make as I watch because for me it has already happened. But for them, at that moment, it had not already happened. And that's what matters, I believe. It's all relative.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the free will thing I think. I still maintain that regardless of anything, it's all a choice. But I'm begining to suspect we define free will differently. I think perhaps we have different ideas on what it actually means to make a choice. For me, even if I will always make the same choice under the same circumstances, it's still a choice. I'm still forming the decision in my own mind. And of course it is not actually guaranteed that I will always make the same choice. Maybe I would and maybe I wouldn't. Unfortunately it's impossible for us mere mortals to test it. And I'm still not stating that we absolutely do have free will. Just that I believe it's perfectly possible that we could. But yeah, I think we define what a choice is differently.

It's kewl, this is all a bunch of unknowable philosophical hoo-ah anyway :D I will say one last thing about free will, though, and then I'll give you the last word if you want it.

You might be right that we define it differently; for all the fluff I'm using to describe my position, what ultimately defines free will to me is whether or not it was ever possible for me to make an alternative decision than the one I ended up making; the concept of "free will" implies some kind of 'transcendence' of nature, which is to say, there exists a part of me that is 'above' the nature of my being and of the natural world, a part that can (for no apparent reason other than because I "choose" to) completely contradict my nature at any point. The universe itself (sans humans) is basically just a giant on-rails physical system --- it has no free will and makes no decisions, it just goes through the motions driven by the laws of physics --- and so if I cannot 'transcend' that system then I don't think I truly have free will. I may have some weak semblance or imitation thereof, but what it would ultimately boil down to is that, if I'm a natural part of the universe with no transcendent 'self,' then I am just an incredibly complex automaton that responds to the cues I am given naturally, and acts how I am naturally "programmed" to respond.

You are right in that this would technically be a "choice," but what I am saying is that this choice *itself* would be pre-determined based on factors such as my personal tendencies (which is pre-determined by genes), my moral beliefs (which are determined by a combination of my natural tendency and my upbringing), and my instinctual desires in the moment (which are not entirely in my control).

A good way to sum up this dilemma is to ask: If I make decisions based on my beliefs, and my beliefs are not in my direct control, do I have free will?

With that line of reasoning, it could be that we do have *some* free will, but not *true* free will; it could be that our decisions are not based on some 'transcendent' self but rather on what our natural self decides is most desirable in the moment.


lol.

"To enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you must become like a little child"

I heard this riddle once, it went like, "What is so simple that a child can understand, yet no scientist can comprehend?" The answer was "faith." I said to this person, "So wait, faith can only be understood by people who lack critical thinking skills?" They didn't seem to have anything else to say after that :p


I argue to win souls. Time is of the essence. Hopefully something I've written here will resonate with unbelievers so as to win them over.

That's really just a convenient excuse to get attention by being annoying, isn't it? As long as you're doing it fer Jebus, it's okay even if you act like an ass.

It's cool if you think that, I'm just saying, ya need to be honest with yourself. When you're not, it really shows :D

For Real
11-17-2010, 05:33 PM
Oh, yeah, I absolutely do that. Thanks for the compliment.

Anyway, I still have massive problems with a lot of what you're saying, but anything beyond this would be mere repetition. I'm willing to agree to disagree now. Especially now that you've admitted that logic and consistency have nothing to do with it.

I like your civilized tone in this message. I also like the "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" nod that you sent my way. :D Yes, the quickest way to peace in a complex controversial discussion full of "seemingly" contradictions, is to simply "agree to disagree."


Apparently we just value different things.

Exactly.

The way I saw it at a Christian conference I attended a long time ago was this:

God first
Family second
Career third
When you learn to get your priorities in order, then you will believe like I do, hence a peaceful conversation will unfold.

Put God in the first place, then everything else will fall into order.

For Real
11-17-2010, 05:38 PM
I heard this riddle once, it went like, "What is so simple that a child can understand, yet no scientist can comprehend?" The answer was "faith." I said to this person, "So wait, faith can only be understood by people who lack critical thinking skills?" They didn't seem to have anything else to say after that :p

Read the scripture again. It says, " . . . like a little child"

Apparently, not even possessing critical thinking skills is enough. One must also possess common sense. :p

For Real
11-17-2010, 05:42 PM
Sorry to pick and choose my favorites "pieces" from your posts tonight, but I have very little time - must go cook for company potluck luncheon. yummy.

I'll return later this week/weekend with some enlightenment. I have a VERY startling revelation concerning free will vs. predestination. Yes, I've known about this subject for a very long time. And I believe I can help put this debate to a peaceful end.

Peace.

Static_Martyr
11-17-2010, 06:19 PM
Read the scripture again. It says, " . . . like a little child"

...exactly....that's the point. Little children tend to lack critical thinking skills :D

For Real
11-17-2010, 06:34 PM
What it all boils down to, though, is this dilemma:

1) If God knows all possible outcomes of our decisions, but not what decisions we will make, then he cannot truly see the future of our actions, which means that he's not truly all-knowing;

2) If God does know which decisions we will make before we make them, then that means our "free will" choices are in fact pre-determined, which in turn means that we never had a real "choice" in the first place, just the illusion of a choice.

Oh gosh, I just can't tear myself away fromt he computer. These 2 statements tie in with my revelation:

God can clearly see the outcomes of our decisions either way. If we choose A, then God already knows what outcome we will have. If we choose B, then God already knows what outcome we will have with that choice. I can see in my mind that there are 2 streams of time that we can decide on at any given time in our human life here on Earth. The choice is ours to make. God cannot make that choice for us. He gave us free will as a gift to make those choices with. But, He knows what will happen either way.

When you say: "If God knows all possible outcomes of our decisions, but not what decisions we will make, then he cannot truly see the future of our actions, which means that he's not truly all-knowing;

I disagree. He can see the future of our actions x 2 - or doubly so. There are 2 streams of time laid out before us much like 2 roads to travel on. He not only knows what will happen if we choose the road to hell, He also knows what will happen if we choose the road to heaven. It is false to say that he is not truly all-knowing just because he gave us Free Will - the ability to make our own decisions regarding choices. You're making it harder than it has to be. He already knows what will happen on Path A and He already knows what will happen on Path B. Which path you follow is your choice. But again, he already knows either way.

You may say, but does He know which path you're going to choose? You and I can't answer this, because we are not God. If we were God, then we would be all-knowing. Just because we can't solve this mystery, does not mean God is not all-knowing. It just means that WE are not all-knowing. Therein lies your faith. You have to trust Him. Try it. He's a good God. He made you. He loves you.

When you say: "If God does know which decisions we will make before we make them, then that means our "free will" choices are in fact pre-determined, which in turn means that we never had a real "choice" in the first place, just the illusion of a choice."

This is false. Pre-destination is completely and utterly false. God gave us free will to make choices. Just because we can't know if God knows which decisions we will make, doesn't mean that He is not all-knowing - it only means that we humans are not all-knowing. God can't tell you if He knows what decisions you will make or not. If God could tell you that, then that would take away your free will, right? At any rate, your statement is hypothetical and not truth. Any statement that begins with the word "if" is a hypothetical statement. You're like the child who whimpers saying, "But what if...?" "And what if this happens, and what if that happens" These lines of reasoning have their basis in fear. What is to fear of a good God? The only reason why anyone would try to speculate on what is in the mind of God, is because that person doesn't trust Him completely. That person has fear. Fear is the opposite of love. If you let go of the need to control, and put your trust in God, then He will reward you in ways you can't imagine - in this life and the next. Why question what is in the mind of a good God? Once you get a hold of what it means to be made by a Creator who is a good, fair, and just God, then all fear subsides and God reveals glory to you in the form of miracles, signs, and wonders. But you have to be willing to take that leap - a leap of faith. If you've never done it, try it. It's like having your best friend catch you when you fall backwards. He won't let you fall. Trust and believe.

Again...

Why are you afraid of a good God? Because of what happened between Lucifer and Him? Okay. Now how does that apply to you? You are not like Lucifer. God did not make you as an angel. God made you as a human, a soul clothed in flesh. He sent you to Earth because YOU asked him to. Why? Because you wanted to be redeemed. Why? Because you wanted to seal your stay in heaven! You wanted to prevent what happened to Lucifer from happening to you! But here you are siding up with the devil, the deceiver! Stop and realize what a gift you have to be a soul here on the Earth plane. Any soul who has been redeemed through the blood of Jesus Christ here on planet Earth will never be kicked out of heaven, because they have earned that right for all of eternity.

'nuff said.

And it's not arrogance. It's more like "an angel with an attitude" <----not scripture (lol), but a quote from the movie, The Santa Clause. I'm just really tired and fed up, and am growing impatient "waiting for the rest of the world to come along." Hurry up! (lol). Seriously though. Don't make God send natural disasters as a wake-up call. Decide for God now. You have a brain. You have intelligence. Decide for good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you. I actually am not. My brain space was just imagining all the unbelievers that I've come across - it's so frustrating, but hopefully, I've provided some clear answers. Peace.)

For Real
11-17-2010, 06:44 PM
...exactly....that's the point. Little children tend to lack critical thinking skills :D

No. Little children tend to trust.

They are not jaded by life's ups and downs yet. They are highly idealistic. Most adults lose their idealistic ways of thinking by age 32. An age where dreams begin to die. Why? Because of all the accumulated disappointments in life. But little children haven't lived long enough yet to experience disappointments. (well, most anyway)

Static_Martyr
11-17-2010, 06:57 PM
I disagree. He can see the future of our actions x 2 - or doubly so. There are 2 streams of time laid out before us much like 2 roads to travel on. He not only knows what will happen if we choose the road to hell, He also knows what will happen if we choose the road to heaven.

Yet he doesn't know which of those two roads we will take. It doesn't matter if he knows ALL of the possible results of any possible choice we will ever make, if he doesn't know WHICH decisions we will make. And if he does know which decisions we will make, then we don't have true free will because our decisions are knowable, which means they are fixed. Hence the dilemma.


Why are you afraid of a good God?

Presumptuous Christian babble. I dunno where you got that from, I can't be afraid of what I don't believe in.

Conversely, why are you afraid of Buddha? Or Horus, or Mithra, or Attis, or Krishna, or Mara, or Vishnu, or Izanagi?


And it's not arrogance. It's more like "an angel with an attitude" <----not scripture (lol), but a quote from the movie, The Santa Clause. I'm just really tired and fed up, and am growing impatient "waiting for the rest of the world to come along."

Well, you go on ahead and enjoy being the "priveleged elite." I plan on going on with my life either way, so don't hold up on account of myself :D


(Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking on you. I actually am not. My brain space was just imagining all the unbelievers that I've come across - it's so frustrating, but hopefully, I've provided some clear answers. Peace.)

You're free to pick as you see fit. It's a free country, after all :D


No. Little children tend to trust.

Exactly! And the fact that they often do so without basis (or based on a blind trust in ANYTHING) is what can get them kidnapped, molested or murdered. Often by Christian priests :p


But little children haven't lived long enough yet to experience disappointments. (well, most anyway)

What sense does it make to say that a child is more learned about life PRECISELY BECAUSE they haven't experienced life yet? That's like saying I know more about biology *because* I have never thoroughly read a biology textbook.

For Real
11-17-2010, 07:15 PM
Yet he doesn't know which of those two roads we will take.

You don't know if God knows that or not. You are a human created by God - not the other way around.


It doesn't matter if he knows ALL of the possible results of any possible choice we will ever make, if he doesn't know WHICH decisions we will make. And if he does know which decisions we will make, then we don't have true free will because our decisions are knowable, which means they are fixed. Hence the dilemma.

There's that "if" statement again.

God doesn't want us to know what is in His mind at this point in time. Maybe later on, when we're in heaven - when we can understand Him better. But here on the Earth plane, having that level of knowledge defeats the purpose of our ability to choose. That is, if WE were to know whether or not God knows which decisions we will make ahead of time, then that would invalidate free will - we would be able to see our future, like an acting script and just play along. It might be a little easier that way during the rough times, but it would also spoil the surprises that God has planned for us - good surprises. Let me guess, as a child you peeked at your Christmas presents, right? That ruins the surprise. Free will and us humans having knowledge of the mind of God cannot coexist - they would cancel each other out. Moreover, that type of knowledge would instantly take away our free will. We humans cannot know the mind of God. God didn't set it up that way.


Conversely, why are you afraid of Buddha? Or Horus, or Mithra, or Attis, or Krishna, or Mara, or Vishnu, or Izanagi?

Who says I'm afraid of them? I'm not.

The Christian God sent His only Son, Jesus the Christ, as a perfect sacrifice for our salvation. God is in a tight relationship with the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God knows what it's like to be human through his Son, Jesus. Who amongst your list of gods is able to do that? Moreover, the Son died a very human death, yet rose from the dead 3 days later. Buddha is still in the grave. Jesus is not. Because Jesus conquered death.


Well, you go on ahead and enjoy being the "priveleged elite." I plan on going on with my life either way, so don't hold up on account of myself :D

That would be easy, if people like you weren't affecting me with the waves. It's like being in the same swimming pool. ugh.


Exactly! And the fact that they often do so without basis (or based on a blind trust in ANYTHING) is what can get them kidnapped, molested or murdered. Often by Christian priests :p

The devil is strong. But God is stronger. It's a very sad topic. It should make you hate the devil even more. He is responsible for all of these things, not God.


What sense does it make to say that a child is more learned about life PRECISELY BECAUSE they haven't experienced life yet? That's like saying I know more about biology *because* I have never thoroughly read a biology textbook.

A child is more learned about the next life, not this life. Because it was just a short time ago that they were there. Also, knowledge is not merely logic and thinking skills, it also experience.

Rooster
11-18-2010, 02:20 AM
The way I saw it at a Christian conference I attended a long time ago was this:

God first
Family second
Career third
When you learn to get your priorities in order, then you will believe like I do, hence a peaceful conversation will unfold.

Put God in the first place, then everything else will fall into order.

Wow. This, right there, is what makes all the difference between being a "good, God fearing Christian" and a "good person". You need to carefully think again about your priorities. Just think of this: if your God told you (perhaps through a dream revelation) to beat up your kids because they didn't go to church on sunday (a sin, and he judged you beating them up would be an appropriate punishment), would you do it? Would you do it if he hadn't interfered and told you it was all just a test (and let's suppose he wouldn't interfere)? If your answer is yes, then you'd better abandon all plans of even having a family. Nothing puts God above your loved ones. Especially not a man-written bestseller fantasy novel. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You may say now that The Bible was indeed written by men, but that God was the one who (perhaps through a series of revelations not unlike your dreams) narrated the story. Ok, but that makes the existance of the Dark Lord Xenu just as probable. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Heck, i once had a really weird (and short) dream, i dreamt that my grandpa's tractor, parked in front of the house, started its engine on its own will, without any human interference. Should i start a religion of the "Holy Self-starting Tractor" then? It sounds ridiculous and it is, but the tractor giving me its commands through a dream sounds just as likely as God giving you his commands through your dreams. Believe whatever you like, just don't put God as a higher priority than people you were supposed to love and care about.

Static_Martyr
11-18-2010, 03:13 AM
You don't know if God knows that or not. You are a human created by God - not the other way around.

It's not a matter of knowledge, it's a matter of mutual exclusivity --- knowledge of one of those things is exclusive of knowledge of the other. C.S. Lewis once famously said that "God can do any thing that is possible; that doesn't mean he can do nonsense." This would apply here, because to know WHICH decision we will make AND know the results before they happen are mutually exclusive, and therefore it's nonsensical to know them both simultaneously.

It's like the heisenberg uncertainty principle -- if you know how fast a particle is moving, then you can't know exactly where it is at the same time (because it's moving, so its location is constantly changing). Unless you'd like to say that god can know THAT simultaneously as well, in which case, I'd be happy to go grab a bag of chips, sit back, and watch you try to work that one out :D


There's that "if" statement again.

I'm only basing my suppositions on what logically follows from the information that you give me. If what you say is true, then what I say is true. I'm allowing for the possibility that you are wrong (and that, subsequently, I am also wrong).


Who says I'm afraid of them? I'm not.

Exactly. So you see why it's so stupid to say such a thing to an atheist in the first place :D


That would be easy, if people like you weren't affecting me with the waves. It's like being in the same swimming pool. ugh.

You're one of those "you're violating my right to religious freedom by not being the same religion as me" types, aren't you?


The devil is strong. But God is stronger. It's a very sad topic. It should make you hate the devil even more. He is responsible for all of these things, not God.

Guess that's why I'm not Christian; I don't "hate" anyone, living or dead (or imaginary).


A child is more learned about the next life, not this life. Because it was just a short time ago that they were there. Also, knowledge is not merely logic and thinking skills, it also experience.

Exactly! Experience. Which children do not have.


Wow. This, right there, is what makes all the difference between being a "good, God fearing Christian" and a "good person". You need to carefully think again about your priorities. Just think of this: if your God told you (perhaps through a dream revelation) to beat up your kids because they didn't go to church on sunday (a sin, and he judged you beating them up would be an appropriate punishment), would you do it? Would you do it if he hadn't interfered and told you it was all just a test (and let's suppose he wouldn't interfere)? If your answer is yes, then you'd better abandon all plans of even having a family. Nothing puts God above your loved ones. Especially not a man-written bestseller fantasy novel. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I don't see why you're so surprised....in the OT, Abraham gleefully carries his son up to an altar in the mountains to be sacrificed under a dagger, *solely* because God asked him to do it to prove his loyalty. Of course God stops him at the last minute, but the point is that the guy was going to murder his son, just because God wanted to see if he would do it, and he was cool with that because it was God.

Rooster
11-18-2010, 03:52 AM
I don't see why you're so surprised....in the OT, Abraham gleefully carries his son up to an altar in the mountains to be sacrificed under a dagger, *solely* because God asked him to do it to prove his loyalty. Of course God stops him at the last minute, but the point is that the guy was going to murder his son, just because God wanted to see if he would do it, and he was cool with that because it was God.

I know that anecdote, and i had it in my mind when i wrote the post. The intention alone makes the act itself bad enough, not to mention how bad it would be had Abraham actually killed his son (or in the hypothetical situation of For Real, beating up the kids because God ordered so). I wasn't really shocked by the anecdote from The Bible (as i view it as fiction, though in hands of the wrong person potentionally dangerous fiction), but that somebody would actually put God in front of his or hers own family for real seemed disturbing.

Though i shouldn't really be surprised, no.

For Real
11-18-2010, 08:23 PM
Wow. This, right there, is what makes all the difference between being a "good, God fearing Christian" and a "good person". You need to carefully think again about your priorities.

What more is there to think about? God's Son, Jesus the Christ, said in the New Testament (and we've been over this before): "You have heard of the 10 Comandments, but now I give you 2. Love God with your whole heart, and love your neighbors (family, friends, etc.) as you love yourself"

My God = Pure Love, so for me it's really very easy to accept this.

My family = awesome, loving, people, BUT, with sin (like myself). They are not perfect. Only God is perfect. When encountering a problem with a family member (and there have been many), I consult with God. My loving God has always come through for me. I have no fear of Him, except the fear of ever losing His presence. I never want to be far from Him for very long.


Just think of this: if your God told you (perhaps through a dream revelation) to beat up your kids because they didn't go to church on sunday (a sin, and he judged you beating them up would be an appropriate punishment), would you do it? Would you do it if he hadn't interfered and told you it was all just a test (and let's suppose he wouldn't interfere)? If your answer is yes, then you'd better abandon all plans of even having a family. Nothing puts God above your loved ones. Especially not a man-written bestseller fantasy novel. You should be ashamed of yourself.

More hypotheticals that don't pertain to our day and time. I'm assuming you're refering to Abraham and the *almost* sacrifice of his son. Back in those days, people were accustomed to killing and sacrificing. Soon after this, Moses was given the 10 Comandments by God Himself, who said "Thou shall not kill" (1 of 9).

So NOW, my question is to YOU: With your awesome logic and thinking skills, why do you EVEN ENTERTAIN THE ABSURD THOUGHT that God would ask anyone to kill a family member given that God has already visited Earth, giving Moses the 10 Comandments that explicitly state THOU SHALL NOT KILL??? Pleeeeeeease answer THAT one for me. :rolleyes: (Gee, I thought logical minds could articulate timelines better than this...?)


You may say now that The Bible was indeed written by men, but that God was the one who (perhaps through a series of revelations not unlike your dreams) narrated the story. Ok, but that makes the existance of the Dark Lord Xenu just as probable. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Heck, i once had a really weird (and short) dream, i dreamt that my grandpa's tractor, parked in front of the house, started its engine on its own will, without any human interference. Should i start a religion of the "Holy Self-starting Tractor" then? It sounds ridiculous and it is, but the tractor giving me its commands through a dream sounds just as likely as God giving you his commands through your dreams. Believe whatever you like, just don't put God as a higher priority than people you were supposed to love and care about.

Are you quoting the "love" comandments that Jesus gave to us in the New Testament? When you say "...people you were supposed to love..." <<------am I to understand that you accept what God, through His Son Jesus, commanded of you?? If so, then go back and read the scripture again, because Jesus FIRST said, "Love GOD with your whole heart". THEN, he said "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

For Real
11-18-2010, 09:07 PM
You might be right that we define it differently; for all the fluff I'm using to describe my position, what ultimately defines free will to me is whether or not it was ever possible for me to make an alternative decision than the one I ended up making; the concept of "free will" implies some kind of 'transcendence' of nature, which is to say, there exists a part of me that is 'above' the nature of my being and of the natural world, a part that can (for no apparent reason other than because I "choose" to) completely contradict my nature at any point.

Exactly. When I said, "we are souls clothed in flesh", this is where the *apparent* contradiction lies. We have a supernatural self AND we have a natural self. We are part mammal/animal AND part divinity. When God made Adam, the last thing He did was *breathe* into Adams lungs to start his life - how awesome. How awesome that the very breath of God was given to Adam and passed down to all of us. How neat.


The universe itself (sans humans) is basically just a giant on-rails physical system --- it has no free will and makes no decisions, it just goes through the motions driven by the laws of physics --- and so if I cannot 'transcend' that system then I don't think I truly have free will.

Yep. Yes, the universe has it's own set of physics. And those physics were created by God. How awesome it is to study science and see the neat and orderly construction of our universe and it's inhabitants. God is the ultimate scientist.


I may have some weak semblance or imitation thereof, but what it would ultimately boil down to is that, if I'm a natural part of the universe with no transcendent 'self,' then I am just an incredibly complex automaton that responds to the cues I am given naturally, and acts how I am naturally "programmed" to respond.

Only a part of you (all of us) is naturally programmed, but the mind is fully capable of transcending human nature.


You are right in that this would technically be a "choice," but what I am saying is that this choice *itself* would be pre-determined based on factors such as my personal tendencies (which is pre-determined by genes), my moral beliefs (which are determined by a combination of my natural tendency and my upbringing), and my instinctual desires in the moment (which are not entirely in my control).

Your choices are not so much "pre-determined" as they are colored by things called "ascription vs. achievement". Ascription are traits, priviledges, personalities, etc. that are set in place from birth. Achievements are accomplishments that we decide for through hard work, perserverance, etc. in spite of what type of start in life we are handed.

No matter what is handed to us, nor what is accomplished through our own merit, when it comes time to put ones MIND to something, such as making a decision, you can do that at any given point in your life regardless of "colorings". For example, my nephews are children of divorce. Out of love, I prayed for answers so that they may have some sort of normal adulthood in spite of their early circumstances. In my prayer I was given this revelation: "Your nephews may not have experienced a typical close-knit nuclear family as children, however, they can still experience an ideal family as parents." When I announced that to them, I saw the light turn on in their eyes.


A good way to sum up this dilemma is to ask: If I make decisions based on my beliefs, and my beliefs are not in my direct control, do I have free will?

Yes. For example, many people in Africa, India, China, are deciding to turn to the Christian God. How are they making this decision? 9 times out of 10 it's not based on their belief systems, because those countries are not typically Christian. Yet many are becoming Christian. So, not only are they making decisions NOT based on their beliefs, but they are demonstrating that their beliefs are ENTIRELY within their direct control. They have made their minds up to become Christian. What a beautiful display of free will.


With that line of reasoning, it could be that we do have *some* free will, but not *true* free will; it could be that our decisions are not based on some 'transcendent' self but rather on what our natural self decides is most desirable in the moment.

Sorry, but I just shot this argument down.



That's really just a convenient excuse to get attention by being annoying, isn't it? As long as you're doing it fer Jebus, it's okay even if you act like an ass.

"annoying"? (hmm... *is considering the source*)


It's cool if you think that, I'm just saying, ya need to be honest with yourself. When you're not, it really shows

You can't judge me in this way. You have no idea if what I said is how I really feel or not. By the way, it is EXACTLY how I feel. So, I not only "think that", I also truely "feel that (way)"

Rooster
11-19-2010, 12:25 AM
What more is there to think about? God's Son, Jesus the Christ, said in the New Testament (and we've been over this before): "You have heard of the 10 Comandments, but now I give you 2. Love God with your whole heart, and love your neighbors (family, friends, etc.) as you love yourself"

My God = Pure Love, so for me it's really very easy to accept this.

My family = awesome, loving, people, BUT, with sin (like myself). They are not perfect. Only God is perfect. When encountering a problem with a family member (and there have been many), I consult with God. My loving God has always come through for me. I have no fear of Him, except the fear of ever losing His presence. I never want to be far from Him for very long.

You just proved my point beautifully.



More hypotheticals that don't pertain to our day and time. I'm assuming you're refering to Abraham and the *almost* sacrifice of his son. Back in those days, people were accustomed to killing and sacrificing. Soon after this, Moses was given the 10 Comandments by God Himself, who said "Thou shall not kill" (1 of 9).

Yes, i was partially refering to that. BUT where exactly did i ask you if you would murder your children had God told you so? Read again:


if your God told you (perhaps through a dream revelation) TO BEAT UP YOUR KIDS because they didn't go to church on sunday (a sin, and he judged you beating them up would be an appropriate punishment), would you do it?

See, i even edited my quote just for you, making the crucial part stand out more for easier understanding.

As far as i know, beating up doesn't mean killing, and none of the 10 commandments cover this field, so i guess it's not forbidden. So, WOULD you do it (and this time don't beat around the bush, just answer the question!)? If so, you're nowhere near to being fit of having your own children.


So NOW, my question is to YOU: With your awesome logic and thinking skills, why do you EVEN ENTERTAIN THE ABSURD THOUGHT that God would ask anyone to kill a family member given that God has already visited Earth, giving Moses the 10 Comandments that explicitly state THOU SHALL NOT KILL??? Pleeeeeeease answer THAT one for me. :rolleyes: (Gee, I thought logical minds could articulate timelines better than this...?)

Read my previous point. Though, he did that once, right? He just changed his mind afterwards. Maybe he was afraid that any more controversies would seriously hurt the book's sales. You know, he always needs money.


Are you quoting the "love" comandments that Jesus gave to us in the New Testament? When you say "...people you were supposed to love..." <<------am I to understand that you accept what God, through His Son Jesus, commanded of you?? If so, then go back and read the scripture again, because Jesus FIRST said, "Love GOD with your whole heart". THEN, he said "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

No, what i'm saying has nothing to do with what Jesus commanded. I believe every good person is supposed to be able to love, regardless if some prophet told him so or not (and for that matter regardless which prophet exactly told him so). Apparently you would hate everyone and go on a killing spree in a kindergarten if that was God's wish?



edit: Just one more thing - What exactly is wrong with people having the ability of logical and critical thinking? You have been implying there's something wrong with that throughout this entire thread. Logic is underrated.

For Real
11-19-2010, 07:38 PM
Yes, i was partially refering to that. BUT where exactly did i ask you if you would murder your children had God told you so?

No, you were referring to the Abraham story. You may not have said "murder your children", but the implication was there.


As far as i know, beating up doesn't mean killing

If it's a serious enough beating, then yes, it can result in killing.


and none of the 10 commandments cover this field, so i guess it's not forbidden.

I wouldn't count on it.


So, WOULD you do it (and this time don't beat around the bush, just answer the question!)?

Dude, you're crazy - and not in the *good* way of being crazy. I have stated over and over that *my* God is a good God, a loving God. I hate to disapoint you and your demands for me to answer your hypothetical (false) question, but I find your question unanswerable because my God would NEVER ask me to beat up my kids.


Read my previous point. Though, he did that once, right? He just changed his mind afterwards.

*laughs*

He didn't "change His mind". He knew ahead of time where the events would lead to. Most likely, the Abraham/Son *almost sacrifice* event was deliberate so as to get the people to stop killing/sacrificing. God gets no pleasure out of death. Incidently, bodily death is also known as the 1st death. Soul/spiritual death is known as the 2nd death.


Maybe he was afraid that any more controversies would seriously hurt the book's sales. You know, he always needs money.

Who needs money? God? Hah! It's all His to begin with. Everything that we have is on loan from God. We can't take it with us, so it will be returned to Him. It may go through legal channels first, in the form of a will, but it's all His, for us to temporarily use. "He giveth and He taketh away". Anything we have is a blessing while we have it, but material things/money/cars/homes etc. should be lower on our priority list then "loving God" and "loving neighbor". Furthermore, if these things were obtained through shady means, then they're cursed and may be taken away quickly and given to the needy and/or the just.


No, what i'm saying has nothing to do with what Jesus commanded. I believe every good person is supposed to be able to love, regardless if some prophet told him so or not (and for that matter regardless which prophet exactly told him so). Apparently you would hate everyone and go on a killing spree in a kindergarten if that was God's wish?

You are hung up on the Old Testament. It's like using an earlier version of Microsoft Windows - or even the Old IBM PC. You wouldn't use an old IBM PC in this century/decade/millenium now would you? The Old Testament is there for us to see God's hand in the evolvement of our ancestors spiritual faith. However, the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. Our direction should always come from it, since God told us so through His son Jesus, again when He summed up the commandments with the 2 love commandments.


edit: Just one more thing - What exactly is wrong with people having the ability of logical and critical thinking? You have been implying there's something wrong with that throughout this entire thread. Logic is underrated.

There is nothing wrong with using the mind that God gave us, if we continue to put God first in our lives. What irks me about "intelligence" is that some tend to get rather puffy and full of themselves (act like a god) after acquiring institutional knowledge/education based on human experiences - which may or may not have involved God's graces (e.g., theory of evolution). The other thing that irks me is when humans begin to think they know everything, just because they hold limited power (knowledge is power) - this is the point where they start letting their minds eclipse their hearts. They become desensitized to the human condition. They start thinking of their earliest instilled beliefs (I'm referring to the upbringing of young Christians in my country) as something akin to "Post-Christianity". They say stuff like, "Oh that was 2000 years ago, we've evolved waaay beyond that now. We have medical science, we have computers, we have superior social- and economic-systems." Blah, blah, blah. Basically, they push God away, because they falsely believe that since all these things make for a more comfy earthly life, then they don't need God. They start questioning His words, His authority, His sovereignty, even His plan for our salvation - they become so comfortable in their intelligence, that they become truely arrogant, thinking they don't need God. And I'm not saying that *all* highly intelligent, accomplished individuals are like this, but a good many - some who are here on this thread - and it's a dangerous predicament that they are in. And I'm not saying this with anger at *them*, but with frustration, intolerance, and hurt, that I see thrown at my God - my Good and Loving God who is not the one to blame for any of their issues that they *intelligently* toss around in their debates, or in their own minds. That's all I'm saying really, that is, when you pick up on a negative vibe from me on this subject. Basically, I would just like to see them become *sensitized* again to the human condition, to help one another instead of debating about so called *lofty thoughts* or about what is in the mind of God - the only reason they're doing that is because they feel a driving impulse to KNOW what is in the mind of God, because they don't trust Him. Yet. So I pray for God to receive his sons and daughters into His kingdom, because He made them, as He made me, and if I can get to this place of belief, then surely so can they. Because, given my very good start in life, there were still many many MANY stumbling blocks for me to overcome, and yet here I am - NOT blaming God for any of the pain that I've experienced. But more importantly, PRAISING God for the glory that I have seen, the miracles, the signs, the wonders, are all so fantastic - that I don't want others to miss out on this - all because they allow their minds to eclipse the hearts. God is Love, not a Vulcan. God did not make us to be without feelings, emotions, smiles, happiness or joy. We are not robots/androids, we are humans called to experience these feelings and to sometimes feel pain too while on this Earth plane, so that we can grow in faith to love and serve God, family, and friends, so that we can obtain the greatest joy and be truely happy in heaven one day.

Static_Martyr
11-19-2010, 08:32 PM
He didn't "change His mind". He knew ahead of time where the events would lead to. Most likely, the Abraham/Son *almost sacrifice* event was deliberate so as to get the people to stop killing/sacrificing.

Okay, I'm gonna have to call you on the bullshit on this one. The attempted sacrifice of Abraham's son was NOT intended to "get the people to stop killing/sacrificing." It was a test of Abraham's faith in God --- a test of the same variety as (though somewhat more extreme than) Jesus' later words in the NT:


Originally posted by Jesus, Matthew 10:34-37 :

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law --- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

It had *nothing whatsoever* to do with getting people to stop offering sacrifices. In fact, later on after the lineage of the Israelites had become more numerous, God (acting through Moses) actually laid out laws on how and what to sacrifice, who was allowed to sacrifice it, and he even gave very precise, specific directions on how to build the sacrificial altar that would host the ceremonies, the Ark of the Covenant. The entire Old Testament is built around the concept of the blood sacrifice or "ransom" (atonement sacrifice). Simply put, God wanted sacrifices, and he went so far as to kill, curse, and punish people who did not offer him sacrifices if they were so beckoned.


You are hung up on the Old Testament. It's like using an earlier version of Microsoft Windows - or even the Old IBM PC. You wouldn't use an old IBM PC in this century/decade/millenium now would you? The Old Testament is there for us to see God's hand in the evolvement of our ancestors spiritual faith. However, the New Testament replaces the Old Testament.

The NT does NOT "replace" the OT. Jesus himself said so; have you ever read the origin story of the phrase, "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone?"


Originally posted by Jesus, John 8:7:

At dawn He went to the temple complex again, and all the people were coming to Him. He sat down and began to teach them.
Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. "Teacher," they said to Him, "this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?" They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him.
Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, "The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her."
Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. When Jesus stood up, he said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, Lord," she answered.
"Neither do I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go, and from now on do not sin any more."

The reason they asked him this was symbolic; if he opposed the old law, then he was violating the will of god. If he agreed to stone her, then he would be violating his new philosophy of "love and forgiveness." He took the third option instead, shifting around the trap by changing the goalposts --- he said not that the old law was wrong, simply that nobody there had the authority or standing to uphold it.

This ties into his other famous quote, from Matthew 5:17, which I shall quote for a third time now:


Originally posted by Jesus:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The old laws still apply; the only change that was made was to the methodology of their enforcement.


Basically, I would just like to see them become *sensitized* again to the human condition, to help one another instead of debating about so called *lofty thoughts* or about what is in the mind of God - the only reason they're doing that is because they feel a driving impulse to KNOW what is in the mind of God, because they don't trust Him.

Sounds like you're just angry that people are thinking about your god instead of just blindly accepting and praising him without even being certain of his existence or justice. You keep making all these unfounded snap judgments, when you don't even know the people you're arguing with. Who are you to say what these people are like outside of a discussion forum? Who are you to say what they do with their lives when they're not debating religion with you? You speak as though the mere act of discussing god or religion amounts to "arrogance" or "being desensitized to the human condition." I dare say that humanists who tirelessly effort towards a reduction in overall human suffering may actually be more in tune with the "human condition" than a Christian who is willing to hate other humans, just to codependently prove their loyalty to a god who is supposed to already know how loyal they are in the first place.


If it's a serious enough beating, then yes, it can result in killing.

Yeah, man, don't you know your Bible? God, in all his infinite wisdom, clearly differentiates between beating someone and killing them:


Originally posted by God, Exodus 21:20:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse, the owner must be punished. However, if the slave can stand up after a day or two, the owner should not be punished because [the slave] is his owner's property.

Rooster
11-20-2010, 12:30 AM
No, you were referring to the Abraham story. You may not have said "murder your children", but the implication was there.

Still, the difference was more than noticable.



If it's a serious enough beating, then yes, it can result in killing.

I said BEAT UP. BEAT UP!!!!!!!! NOT KILL! ARE YOU ILLITERATE?



I wouldn't count on it.

Oh Really?


1. I am the LORD your God:
you shall not have
strange Gods before me.

2. You shall not take
the name of the LORD your God in vain.

3. Remember to keep holy the LORD'S Day.

4. Honor your father and your mother.

5. You shall not kill.

6. You shall not commit adultery.

7. You shall not steal.

8. You shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor.

9. You shall not covet
your neighbor's wife.

10. You shall not covet
your neighbor's goods.


Show me WHERE EXACTLY does it say so.



Dude, you're crazy - and not in the *good* way of being crazy. I have stated over and over that *my* God is a good God, a loving God. I hate to disapoint you and your demands for me to answer your hypothetical (false) question, but I find your question unanswerable because my God would NEVER ask me to beat up my kids.

Why not? He did ask abraham to KILL his son after all. Sure beating up your kids for him wouldn't be hard to ask, as long as they still breathe in the end. Besides, which loving god would allow to have his holy name put as an excuse for the crusades (maybe he even gave his blessing)?




*laughs*

He didn't "change His mind". He knew ahead of time where the events would lead to. Most likely, the Abraham/Son *almost sacrifice* event was deliberate so as to get the people to stop killing/sacrificing. God gets no pleasure out of death. Incidently, bodily death is also known as the 1st death. Soul/spiritual death is known as the 2nd death.

I agree with Static_Martyr here and i'm calling you on bullshit too.



Who needs money? God? Hah! It's all His to begin with. Everything that we have is on loan from God. We can't take it with us, so it will be returned to Him. It may go through legal channels first, in the form of a will, but it's all His, for us to temporarily use. "He giveth and He taketh away". Anything we have is a blessing while we have it, but material things/money/cars/homes etc. should be lower on our priority list then "loving God" and "loving neighbor". Furthermore, if these things were obtained through shady means, then they're cursed and may be taken away quickly and given to the needy and/or the just.

Your sarcasm/joke sensor is broken. Please repair it.



You are hung up on the Old Testament. It's like using an earlier version of Microsoft Windows - or even the Old IBM PC. You wouldn't use an old IBM PC in this century/decade/millenium now would you? The Old Testament is there for us to see God's hand in the evolvement of our ancestors spiritual faith. However, the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. Our direction should always come from it, since God told us so through His son Jesus, again when He summed up the commandments with the 2 love commandments.

You have just admitted that the whole theory of creation is a lie and Adam and Eve never existed. Thank you. You're the first creationist ever to have done this, and the whole evolutionist world will be forever grateful for this moment and praise your name for all eternity.



*here For Real said some stuff, which i read but had to cut because of the 10000 characters per post limit*

So, being critical of God and The Bible isn't allowed, but blindly trusting in a fictional "hero" of a fantasy book is?

I am thine God. Thou shall not argue me. Thou shall do whatever i tell thou. Thou shall never speak thine Bible mumbo-jumbo ever again. I should have never gotten that book released. I drank 2 ounces of kerosene and shot up 3 pounds of gunpowder directly into my bloodstream, what the heck do thou think i would do, write a biography or something? Thou shall abolish the book. Also, thou shall maketh all the water on the Earth into wine. And Earth is FLAT! Thou shall never speak against this word, for i am thine Master, and am speaking through Raptor88's BBS profile. He shall not remember any of this, but this is all true beyond any reason of doubt because i said so and i am thine God.

I'm sorry, i dozed off for a few minutes. What happened?


And in the end, i'm asking you again. WOULD YOU BEAT UP YOUR KIDS IF GOD ORDERED SO OR WOULDN'T YOU? He could change his mind again if he wanted. You are not in position to tell what he would do.

For Real
11-20-2010, 03:56 AM
Okay, I'm gonna have to call you on the bullshit on this one. The attempted sacrifice of Abraham's son was NOT intended to "get the people to stop killing/sacrificing." It was a test of Abraham's faith in God

Yes, it was a test of Abraham's faith in God. The reason why I didn't say this was because everybody already knows that. But what most people don't get from the story is God's 1st stoppage of a HUMAN killing sacrifice - it's a beautiful, loving example to the people.


It had *nothing whatsoever* to do with getting people to stop offering sacrifices.

"Offering sacrifices" vs. "Killing humans as a sacrifice" are two different things.


The NT does NOT "replace" the OT. Jesus himself said so; have you ever read the origin story of the phrase, "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone?"

The reason they asked him this was symbolic; if he opposed the old law, then he was violating the will of god. If he agreed to stone her, then he would be violating his new philosophy of "love and forgiveness." He took the third option instead, shifting around the trap by changing the goalposts --- he said not that the old law was wrong, simply that nobody there had the authority or standing to uphold it.

This ties into his other famous quote, from Matthew 5:17, which I shall quote for a third time now:



The old laws still apply; the only change that was made was to the methodology of their enforcement.

It's one of my favorite New Testament biblical stories. Again, God, through Jesus, is preventing a killing.

"he said not that the old law was wrong, simply that nobody there had the authority or standing to uphold it." And nobody, no human, will EVER have the authority to uphold the old law; therefore, making it non-applicable as far as human judging human. It is NOW only applicable as far as God judging human - but not even God does this. Only God/Jesus/Holy Spirit can uphold the old law because they, the 3 persons in 1, the Holy Trinity, are the ONLY ones without sin. Jesus is fullfilling the old law, because He is without sin - a stark contrast to those standing around him - and yet not even HE throws a stone at the woman. Instead, he counsels her. So, the fulfilling of the old law is JESUS himself - a perfect sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.


Sounds like you're just angry that people are thinking about your god instead of just blindly accepting and praising him without even being certain of his existence or justice.

Not angry, just frustrated.


You keep making all these unfounded snap judgments, when you don't even know the people you're arguing with. Who are you to say what these people are like outside of a discussion forum?

As I said, my mind space is not limited solely to the people on this discussion forum. I'm thinking about all the unbelievers.


Who are you to say what they do with their lives when they're not debating religion with you? You speak as though the mere act of discussing god or religion amounts to "arrogance" or "being desensitized to the human condition."

'mere act of discussing god' or blaming God for the pain in this world? The point I was trying to make is that no matter how much intelligence/knowledge we attain in this life, we should never let that intelligence eclipse our hearts to the point of blaming God for the pain in this world, because God didn't cause it. The devil did, not God.


I dare say that humanists who tirelessly effort towards a reduction in overall human suffering may actually be more in tune with the "human condition" than a Christian who is willing to hate other humans, just to codependently prove their loyalty to a god who is supposed to already know how loyal they are in the first place.

Humanitarians are awesome people - what a beautiful display of love they show when helping the destitute, etc.

Dude, I am far from "...a Christian who is willing to hate other humans..." I love everyone and you know it. If you don't feel the love, then it could be because the Holy Spirit is convicting you - not me.

There is nothing wrong with being codependent with God - that's a good thing!! Would you rather be codependent with the Devil?? Not me.

And God knows when we are loyal to Him and when we aren't loyal to him. It's not as if one can do a good deed and stop there. This life is a constant proving ground.

Rooster
11-20-2010, 04:39 AM
Jesus was pure love, and new testament doesn't promote violence.


Matthew 15:1-9

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

Sounds like a really peaceful dude.




'mere act of discussing god' or blaming God for the pain in this world? The point I was trying to make is that no matter how much intelligence/knowledge we attain in this life, we should never let that intelligence eclipse our hearts to the point of blaming God for the pain in this world, because God didn't cause it. The devil did, not God.


Let me set this straight: God is almighty and all-powerfull, right? And he's good and loving. Yet the devil is the one who causes all the evil. But if God really was good (or loving) and almighty, shouldn't he be able to prevent that evil to happen in the first place?

So either

1. God simply doesn't give a fuck about evil and therefore is nor good nor loving.

OR

2. He simply isn't almighty since he can't stop the evil from happening (a good god who loves his followers would answer their prayers) and the devil is stronger than him.


A god that can't even stop people (under devil's influence) doing bad things to eachother was supposely able to create the whole fucking universe? And i'm supposed to believe that? Well i'll be damned. I am NOT following somebody who is either incapable of doing his job, or just doesn't give a damn.



There is, of course, a third option, too. There is no god, never was and never will be. I'm leaning towards this option.

Static_Martyr
11-20-2010, 05:53 AM
Yes, it was a test of Abraham's faith in God. The reason why I didn't say this was because everybody already knows that. But what most people don't get from the story is God's 1st stoppage of a HUMAN killing sacrifice - it's a beautiful, loving example to the people.

God never said *anything* in that story about wanting to stop human sacrifices; he was testing Abraham, nothing more. There is no evidence anywhere to indicate that this story was God's attempt to "stop human sacrifices;" that comes much later, when he tells the Israelites not to sacrifice their children to Molech anymore (apparently they had to be told!). There is no connection between the two stories, however.


"Offering sacrifices" vs. "Killing humans as a sacrifice" are two different things.

Maybe to you. To me, either way it's killing someone to appease God's bloodlust.


"he said not that the old law was wrong, simply that nobody there had the authority or standing to uphold it." And nobody, no human, will EVER have the authority to uphold the old law; therefore, making it non-applicable as far as human judging human. It is NOW only applicable as far as God judging human - but not even God does this. Only God/Jesus/Holy Spirit can uphold the old law because they, the 3 persons in 1, the Holy Trinity, are the ONLY ones without sin. Jesus is fullfilling the old law, because He is without sin - a stark contrast to those standing around him - and yet not even HE throws a stone at the woman. Instead, he counsels her. So, the fulfilling of the old law is JESUS himself - a perfect sacrifice for the salvation of mankind.

Not true at all. The message was the whole "accept Jesus as your savior" hoo-doo because Jesus supposedly redeems sin, and so anyone who doesn't "accept Jesus" is not fit to enforce the law (otherwise, Christianity would prevent itself from enforcing laws that prevent things like murder, gay marriage, abortion, etc., since according to the Bible, these things all come from....you guessed it, Old Testament law).


Not angry, just frustrated.

Toh-may-to, toh-mah-to. So you admit you don't like people trying to discuss your god instead of blindly following and accepting everything?


As I said, my mind space is not limited solely to the people on this discussion forum. I'm thinking about all the unbelievers.

I don't see how this makes it better in your mind --- it actually makes it worse! You're judging a billion nonreligious people around the world, the vast overwhelming majority of which I'm willing to bet money that you have never even met (judging from your arrogant presumptions about other people's beliefs or reasons)! That makes you even more arrogant and prejudiced. And ignorant.


'mere act of discussing god' or blaming God for the pain in this world? The point I was trying to make is that no matter how much intelligence/knowledge we attain in this life, we should never let that intelligence eclipse our hearts to the point of blaming God for the pain in this world, because God didn't cause it. The devil did, not God.

Why don't you stop right there, and go point to whatever post I 'blamed god for the evil in the world?' I don't even believe in god, so how could I blame him for anything?

Secondly, "the devil did it" is one of the most unconvincing stock excuses for anything ever concocted by the church. If God created the devil, and God is all-knowing, then God saw that coming, and yet he did it anyway. Therefore God meant for that to happen. We might even say that Satan essentially "works for god," even if without realizing it.


Dude, I am far from "...a Christian who is willing to hate other humans..." I love everyone and you know it. If you don't feel the love, then it could be because the Holy Spirit is convicting you - not me.

You said that you "hate" Satan as well, that was pretty odd. I thought Christians didn't hate anyone? Not counting when they're letting Jesus "turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law," and make "a man's enemies...the members of his own household." Other than that, I meant.

Llamas
11-20-2010, 07:00 AM
For Real: God doesn't cause evil? Everyone has free will? Hmm, the Bible doesn't agree with you. (And these are only the new testament verses that disagree... there are *dozens* of old testament ones, as well.)

God chooses our way - Psalm 25:12

The word of the Lord is right. All his works, good and evil, are in truth -Psalm 33:4

God knows all his works from the beginning - Acts 15:14-18

Man has no free will to plan evil - Psalm 33:10, 11, 12
(direct quote: "10 The LORD foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.
11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
the people he chose for his inheritance.")

Rooster
11-20-2010, 08:17 AM
I love llamas :)

/thread

For Real
11-20-2010, 10:09 PM
Show me WHERE EXACTLY does it say so.

LOVE God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and with all your strength.

LOVE your neighbor as you love yourself.



Why not? He did ask abraham to KILL his son after all. Sure beating up your kids for him wouldn't be hard to ask, as long as they still breathe in the end. Besides, which loving god would allow to have his holy name put as an excuse for the crusades (maybe he even gave his blessing)?

It was a test of Abraham's faith AND an example to stop the human sacrifices during the ancient time that Abraham lived.

The crusades are a black mark in the history of the Christian church. God never told any of them to kill in His name. Before he left this earth, Pope John Paul II prayed and asked for forgiveness in the Jubilee year (2000), on behalf of the church, for these errors, and many more.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/031300pope-apology.html


Your sarcasm/joke sensor is broken. Please repair it.

It's a serious subject. I see no need for sarcasm right now. I am talking about the salvation of souls - what could be more important?


You have just admitted that the whole theory of creation is a lie and Adam and Eve never existed.

Did nothing of the sort. All of the Old Testament is fact, but the core faith instructions are updated by Jesus' 2 love comandments in the New Testament.


So, being critical of God and The Bible isn't allowed, but blindly trusting in a fictional "hero" of a fantasy book is?

For someone who thinks the Bible is a fantasy book, you sure do quote it a lot. Why spend so much time reading a book that you don't agree with?


And in the end, i'm asking you again. WOULD YOU BEAT UP YOUR KIDS IF GOD ORDERED SO OR WOULDN'T YOU? He could change his mind again if he wanted. You are not in position to tell what he would do.

Again, my God would never order me to do that.
Your god might order you to do that, but not mine.

For Real
11-20-2010, 10:49 PM
Jesus was pure love, and new testament doesn't promote violence.



Sounds like a really peaceful dude.




Let me set this straight: God is almighty and all-powerfull, right? And he's good and loving. Yet the devil is the one who causes all the evil. But if God really was good (or loving) and almighty, shouldn't he be able to prevent that evil to happen in the first place?

So either

1. God simply doesn't give a fuck about evil and therefore is nor good nor loving.

OR

2. He simply isn't almighty since he can't stop the evil from happening (a good god who loves his followers would answer their prayers) and the devil is stronger than him.


A god that can't even stop people (under devil's influence) doing bad things to eachother was supposely able to create the whole fucking universe? And i'm supposed to believe that? Well i'll be damned. I am NOT following somebody who is either incapable of doing his job, or just doesn't give a damn.



There is, of course, a third option, too. There is no god, never was and never will be. I'm leaning towards this option.

For clarity sake, that portion of the Book of Matthew is entitled: The Teaching of the Ancestors. Unfortunately, you're taking the gospel out of context. When Jesus encountered the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, he quoted God's command as how God told the people in the Old Testament - all for the sake of speaking to them on their level and within their subject area. Jesus quoted the old law, not authored it.

Now then. Regarding the Old Law, stop and think about what God was saying. Stop and really really think hard. He was commanding that one's parents are to be respected. Got it?? Now, if one disobeyed God's teaching, then there was a consequence to deal with. In other words, God was trying to prevent far worse evils from taking root by commanding people to respect their parents. Evidently, this was a very IMPORTANT command, so much so, that if it wasn't adhered to, then that person who disobeyed was (during Old Testament times) very evil and should suffer death - the 1st death. God can stop people from doing bad things to each other at any time He wants to. But at that point in Human history, He stressed the priority of parental respect in a profound way to the point where a lesser evil was allowed in order to prevent greater evils from taking hold in human society.

Also, when Jesus took on suffering, died, was buried, and resurrected from the dead, he did so in order to establish forgiveness of sins. During Old Testament times, there was no concept of forgiveness of sins yet. The times that you and I live in do not call for death when one disrespects one's parents (God forbid), but rather understanding and forgiveness for our sins, because we are fortunate enough to be living in the time of Christ - that is, "A.D." vs "B.C."

So, your 2 conditional statements are false. God does care about us, that is why he sent His son Jesus. The New Testament changed everything. Sin is forgiveable now, because Jesus died for our salvation. Hallelujah! And God is Almighty and hears prayers and can stop and will stop evil from happening at the time He so chooses - which many Christians believe is near and at hand.

For Real
11-21-2010, 12:06 AM
God never said *anything* in that story about wanting to stop human sacrifices; he was testing Abraham, nothing more. There is no evidence anywhere to indicate that this story was God's attempt to "stop human sacrifices;" that comes much later, when he tells the Israelites not to sacrifice their children to Molech anymore (apparently they had to be told!). There is no connection between the two stories, however.

For some of us more enlightened folks, God doesn't have to always *say* anything in order for us to discern His intent. God's actions spoke louder than words. The Israelites couldn't discern this, that is why they needed to be told. Of course the two stories are connected - it shows the evolvement of mankind's faith - from something near to barbarian to civilized rational being.


Maybe to you. To me, either way it's killing someone to appease God's bloodlust.

Offering sacrifices does not involve killing humans. In today's Christian world, offering sacrifices means to lay upon the Lord all the hardships of your day - that when a good Christian says his or her prayers at night, before closing their eyes to sleep, in their heart they will ask God for forgiveness of their sins, while at the same time forgiving others for any hardships incurred. An offering of sacrifice by today's standards is also in the form of tithing - that is, money earned through hard work and given to the Church so that the Church may use it to minister to those in need - since our money is earned through hard work, then it is sprinkled with those hardships just mentioned, making it a sacrifice or an offering.



Not true at all. The message was the whole "accept Jesus as your savior" hoo-doo because Jesus supposedly redeems sin, and so anyone who doesn't "accept Jesus" is not fit to enforce the law (otherwise, Christianity would prevent itself from enforcing laws that prevent things like murder, gay marriage, abortion, etc., since according to the Bible, these things all come from....you guessed it, Old Testament law).

Not true? Are you without sin? Even Original sin?

"No man is in control of his own soul"



Toh-may-to, toh-mah-to. So you admit you don't like people trying to discuss your god instead of blindly following and accepting everything?

There comes a point in time where words will take a lower priority to the unfolding of God's plan for salvation for his beloved creations. I pray that you will be able to experience God's love so that you may be able to use your vast knowledge and debating skills to argue for God, instead of against Him. Your misery will become your ministry. Your audience will be your current-day peers and supporters. You will reach other intellectuals who think they are too smart for God and have no need for salvation. God will turn your words right-side-up and you will become a great saint, meeting every challenge spoken to you and hitting it head on with precision and accuracy - all for the the harvest of souls in these end times, and for the ultimate Glory of God. (++prophesy from God, through me, to you++). God Speed!! :)


I don't see how this makes it better in your mind --- it actually makes it worse! You're judging a billion nonreligious people around the world, the vast overwhelming majority of which I'm willing to bet money that you have never even met (judging from your arrogant presumptions about other people's beliefs or reasons)! That makes you even more arrogant and prejudiced. And ignorant.

I am not capable of judging another - that is only for God to do. What I have done is made an observation.


Secondly, "the devil did it" is one of the most unconvincing stock excuses for anything ever concocted by the church. If God created the devil,

As I've already stated, God did not create the devil. God created Lucifer. Lucifer defied God. At that point, God changed his name to Satan to distinguish between what God had created, and what Satan ended up doing through his own free will.


and God is all-knowing, then God saw that coming, and yet he did it anyway. Therefore God meant for that to happen.

Lucifer made his choice to defy God. God did not cause this to happen. Even if God knew ahead of time that Lucifer would choose to disobey, He still did not cause him to do that, because Lucifer had free will.


We might even say that Satan essentially "works for god," even if without realizing it.

You might. I won't.


You said that you "hate" Satan as well, that was pretty odd. I thought Christians didn't hate anyone?

"anyone" does not include Satan. Satan is evil. Christians are called to hate evil.


Not counting when they're letting Jesus "turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law," and make "a man's enemies...the members of his own household." Other than that, I meant.

A difficult scripture to understand. My understanding of it is that since there is already evil in the world due to Satan, and we inherit original sin, then there will be a "tearing apart" of one's soul when becoming a born-again Christian - that there will be some conflict amongst family members in the process - really means that until we are all ONE in Christ, then there shall be no peace until that point in time occurs.

Rooster
11-21-2010, 12:57 AM
LOVE God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and with all your strength.

LOVE your neighbor as you love yourself.

That's not explicitly saying "Thou shall not beat your children". You fail to prove a point.



It was a test of Abraham's faith AND an example to stop the human sacrifices during the ancient time that Abraham lived.

Abraham didn't know that at first, he was going to MURDER his son to please god. Hadn't God interfered, Abraham would proceed. And don't say "God would interfere because he's a good God", because as i said before, you're not in position to tell God what he would do, it's his own will after all, because he is a much, much higher authority than you. And in given hypothetical situation God WOULD NOT interfere (in the example i gave, that is). Again, you fail to prove a point.


The crusades are a black mark in the history of the Christian church. God never told any of them to kill in His name. Before he left this earth, Pope John Paul II prayed and asked for forgiveness in the Jubilee year (2000), on behalf of the church, for these errors, and many more.


http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/031300pope-apology.html

Ok, they did apologise, but this doesn't erase the fact that crusades happened, and God didn't do shit to stop them.



It's a serious subject. I see no need for sarcasm right now. I am talking about the salvation of souls - what could be more important?

Wait a minute... Sam? Sam Winchester?



Did nothing of the sort. All of the Old Testament is fact, but the core faith instructions are updated by Jesus' 2 love comandments in the New Testament.

You explicitly stated (and even colored the word to make the statement seem more important) that the New Testament REPLACES Old Testament. The book of Genesis is in the old testament. Or are you saying now that only parts of Old Testament should be ignored? Then who are you to decide which parts? Again, you are contradicting yourself and failing to prove a point.


For someone who thinks the Bible is a fantasy book, you sure do quote it a lot. Why spend so much time reading a book that you don't agree with?

If you're quoting it to prove a point, why shouldn't i? And speaking of quotes, you completely ignored what ilovellamas said, which COMPLETELY undermines your statements about free will and God not creating evil, BY THE BIBLE (NEW TESTAMENT) ITSELF!




Again, my God would never order me to do that.
Your god might order you to do that, but not mine.

IF YOU WERE AT COURT FIGHTING FOR CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN AND A LAWYER ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION (and if the judge allowed the question), YOU WOULD BE DAMN REQUIRED TO ANSWER IT! Again, a hypothetical situation, i know. You're just avoiding the answer any way you can, which happens to be always the same way, same bullshit. So i'm going to take your avoidance as a YES. You're disgusting, and fucking DUMB.

Rooster
11-21-2010, 01:21 AM
For clarity sake, that portion of the Book of Matthew is entitled: The Teaching of the Ancestors. Unfortunately, you're taking the gospel out of context. When Jesus encountered the Pharisees and teachers of the Law, he quoted God's command as how God told the people in the Old Testament - all for the sake of speaking to them on their level and within their subject area. Jesus quoted the old law, not authored it.

Out of context? OUT OF CONTEXT? The exact statement id very well IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GOSPEL! What's not to understand? Jesus basically ORDERS to kill anyone who disrespects thair parents (he gave that as an example) or their God. And the statement is put very well into the context, i didn't quote just that one line. What would mean "in the context" for you, would i have to quote the whole fucking Bible? Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolishe the old laws, but to fulfull them. He very well knew what the old laws said, and he endorsed them. AGAIN, you FAIL to prove a point.



Now then. Regarding the Old Law, stop and think about what God was saying. Stop and really really think hard. He was commanding that one's parents are to be respected. Got it?? Now, if one disobeyed God's teaching, then there was a consequence to deal with. In other words, God was trying to prevent far worse evils from taking root by commanding people to respect their parents. Evidently, this was a very IMPORTANT command, so much so, that if it wasn't adhered to, then that person who disobeyed was (during Old Testament times) very evil and should suffer death - the 1st death. God can stop people from doing bad things to each other at any time He wants to. But at that point in Human history, He stressed the priority of parental respect in a profound way to the point where a lesser evil was allowed in order to prevent greater evils from taking hold in human society.

THERE IT IS. You finally answered my question. Had your kids disrespected yout God (and consequently you) by not going to church on Sunday, you would beat them up, perhaps even murder them. You really are a horrible person.


Also, when Jesus took on suffering, died, was buried, and resurrected from the dead, he did so in order to establish forgiveness of sins. During Old Testament times, there was no concept of forgiveness of sins yet. The times that you and I live in do not call for death when one disrespects one's parents (God forbid), but rather understanding and forgiveness for our sins, because we are fortunate enough to be living in the time of Christ - that is, "A.D." vs "B.C."

So, your 2 conditional statements are false. God does care about us, that is why he sent His son Jesus. The New Testament changed everything. Sin is forgiveable now, because Jesus died for our salvation. Hallelujah! And God is Almighty and hears prayers and can stop and will stop evil from happening at the time He so chooses - which many Christians believe is near and at hand.


He sent his fucking son to DIE? Couldn't he just clap his hands and make it right or something? Creating the universe didn't seem to be much of a problem, but he can't prevent evil from happening? You aren't saying he did prevent the evil from happening (which was my point), but that he sent somebody to wash our sins away. The evil is still very well present in this world. Have you ever heard of, you know, wars, rape, murders, child abuse, thefts, terminal diseases, nazi concentration camps (that was during the WWII, but hey, it was WELL AFTER Jesus supposely died for our sins), and genocides? God either can't help (the devil is stronger) and is not almighty, OR he is almighty but doesn't want to help because it's against his will (and is therefore a bad, unloving God). These are the two options, there is no middle ground, you're again just beating around the bush.

According to Net Testament that you praise a lot and follow more than OT, here's a post you intentionally overlooked, but shouldn't have:


Originally posted by ilovellamas:

For Real: God doesn't cause evil? Everyone has free will? Hmm, the Bible doesn't agree with you. (And these are only the new testament verses that disagree... there are *dozens* of old testament ones, as well.)

God chooses our way - Psalm 25:12

The word of the Lord is right. All his works, good and evil, are in truth -Psalm 33:4

God knows all his works from the beginning - Acts 15:14-18

Man has no free will to plan evil - Psalm 33:10, 11, 12
(direct quote: "10 The LORD foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.
11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
the people he chose for his inheritance.")

Or were these meant as tongue in cheak statements too?

Llamas
11-21-2010, 06:38 AM
For Real: God doesn't cause evil? Everyone has free will? Hmm, the Bible doesn't agree with you. (And these are only the new testament verses that disagree... there are *dozens* of old testament ones, as well.)

God chooses our way - Psalm 25:12

The word of the Lord is right. All his works, good and evil, are in truth -Psalm 33:4

God knows all his works from the beginning - Acts 15:14-18

Man has no free will to plan evil - Psalm 33:10, 11, 12
(direct quote: "10 The LORD foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.
11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
the people he chose for his inheritance.")

Just in case she tries to dispute these, here are the direct lines from the Bible.

Psalm 25:12 - God chooses our way:
12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall He teach in the way that He shall choose.

Psalm 33:4 - The word of the Lord is right. All his works, good and evil, are in truth:
4 For the word of the LORD is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does. (This includes all the death and destruction of the old testament).

Acts 15:14-18 - God knows all his works from the beginning:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

And I already quoted the last one.

Static_Martyr
11-21-2010, 10:01 AM
For some of us more enlightened folks, God doesn't have to always *say* anything in order for us to discern His intent. God's actions spoke louder than words. The Israelites couldn't discern this, that is why they needed to be told. Of course the two stories are connected - it shows the evolvement of mankind's faith - from something near to barbarian to civilized rational being.

See, it's quotes like this that make me think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. You're reading so much post-hoc justification into the original text that clearly wasn't intended when it was written, and on top of that you're acting like everyone else should be able to see it as well. TVTropes.org has a word for this, "Fanon:"


Fanon is the set of theories based on that material which, while they generally seem to be the "obvious" or "only" interpretation of canonical fact, are not actually part of the canon. Occasionally, the explanation seems good enough to just be "common sense." The salient point to remember is that when someone shouts, "That violates canon!", they are very often totally incorrect.

And on top of that, you seem to shamelessly (even proudly) view everyone else as "intellectually beneath you," in a tireless display of Christian elitism. There's really no use in trying to have even a light conversation with a person like that; all you'll get for your troubles is the repeated assertion that "I am above you intellectually," "I am enlightened and you are not," etc. Really not worth my time.


Offering sacrifices does not involve killing humans. In today's Christian world, offering sacrifices means to lay upon the Lord all the hardships of your day - that when a good Christian says his or her prayers at night, before closing their eyes to sleep, in their heart they will ask God for forgiveness of their sins, while at the same time forgiving others for any hardships incurred. An offering of sacrifice by today's standards is also in the form of tithing - that is, money earned through hard work and given to the Church so that the Church may use it to minister to those in need - since our money is earned through hard work, then it is sprinkled with those hardships just mentioned, making it a sacrifice or an offering.[I]

Problem is, that's not what 'sacrifice' means. This is another instance of "fanon" twisted by NT proponents to allow for the reconciliation with the OT. Which is odd when you think about it, because it's not even necessary to reconcile this by Biblical canon --- Jesus' sacrifice of himself was supposed to act as a "coverage policy" for any and all blood sacrifices from that point on. So there's no need for sacrifices anymore.


[I]Not true? Are you without sin? Even Original sin?

"No man is in control of his own soul"

Another point which makes me believe you're not even really reading what I'm saying. The comment to which the above quote was a response did not in any way imply that "I am without sin" (although no, I do not believe in original sin, now that you mention it). What I said was:


The message was the whole "accept Jesus as your savior" hoo-doo because Jesus supposedly redeems sin, and so anyone who doesn't "accept Jesus" is not fit to enforce the law (otherwise, Christianity would prevent itself from enforcing laws that prevent things like murder, gay marriage, abortion, etc., since according to the Bible, these things all come from....you guessed it, Old Testament law).

Which means that, if we accept YOUR logic here, then Christians have no grounds on which to enforce Biblical law, because they are not without sin. And judging from your arrogance, I can only assume that you believe Christians are not supposed to eschew the legal system entirely.


There comes a point in time where words will take a lower priority to the unfolding of God's plan for salvation for his beloved creations. I pray that you will be able to experience God's love so that you may be able to use your vast knowledge and debating skills to argue for God, instead of against Him. Your misery will become your ministry. Your audience will be your current-day peers and supporters. You will reach other intellectuals who think they are too smart for God and have no need for salvation. God will turn your words right-side-up and you will become a great saint, meeting every challenge spoken to you and hitting it head on with precision and accuracy - all for the the harvest of souls in these end times, and for the ultimate Glory of God. (++prophesy from God, through me, to you++). God Speed!!

Translation: "Pray a lot, ignore what doesn't make sense, and then you'll be a true Christian." I just cannot do that, sorry.


I am not capable of judging another - that is only for God to do. What I have done is made an observation.

Poh-tay-to, poh-tah-to. You're making assumptions about people you don't know based on people you've met, or things you've been told in church or in the Bible. That is what prejudiced means. You would certainly call me a racist if I went around saying things about "black people" that I did not know, based on black people that I have met, would you not?


As I've already stated, God did not create the devil. God created Lucifer. Lucifer defied God. At that point, God changed his name to Satan to distinguish between what God had created, and what Satan ended up doing through his own free will.

Doesn't matter. God made him, god knew it would happen; therefore, God gave permission for that to happen, he allowed it to happen; he saw it coming, and yet did nothing to stop it.


You might. I won't.

You can, but you won't. Would it make too much sense for you? :confused:


"anyone" does not include Satan. Satan is evil. Christians are called to hate evil.

I prefer to never waste my time "hating" anyone, and instead focus on acting positively and getting rid of suffering. I guess since I'm not part of the Luxurious Christian Elite, I don't have time to go around hating things I don't like. Besides, if Satan were real, I'd say he had it bad enough by, you know, being in Hell for eternity. It'd be a waste of time to go on kicking such a person when he's down.


A difficult scripture to understand. My understanding of it is that since there is already evil in the world due to Satan, and we inherit original sin, then there will be a "tearing apart" of one's soul when becoming a born-again Christian - that there will be some conflict amongst family members in the process - really means that until we are all ONE in Christ, then there shall be no peace until that point in time occurs.

And this is the quote which proves that we cannot reconcile....we should just agree to disagree. I'll give you the last word after this post. I guess I do need to say "thanks" first, though --- because it's people like you who are increasing the ranks of nonbelievers around the world every day, by driving them away from Christianity with your nonsense-talk :D

For Real
11-21-2010, 07:43 PM
That's not explicitly saying "Thou shall not beat your children". You fail to prove a point.

Actually, you FAILED to LEARN my point, or rather, God/Jesus/Holy Spirit's point.


Abraham didn't know that at first, he was going to MURDER his son to please god. Hadn't God interfered, Abraham would proceed. And don't say "God would interfere because he's a good God", because as i said before, you're not in position to tell God what he would do, it's his own will after all, because he is a much, much higher authority than you. And in given hypothetical situation God WOULD NOT interfere (in the example i gave, that is). Again, you fail to prove a point.

The Abraham/Isaac story was not just for the benefit of Abraham. If it were only meant for Abraham, then God wouldn't have placed it in the bible. The story is for all to read, learn from, and yes, even get additional insights from.

Genesis 22:2 "Take your son," God said, "your only son, Isaac, whom you love so much, and go the land of Moriah. There on a mountain that I will show you, offer him as a sacrifice to me."

Genesis 22:11-12 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, "Abraham, Abraham!" He answered, "Yes, here I am." "Don't hurt the boy or do anything to him," he said. "Now I know that you honor and obey God, because you have not kept back your only son from him."

Wow, look at the parallels between Abraham/Isaac and God/Jesus. God sent His only son, whom He also loved so much, to die for our sins as a perfect sacrifice.


Ok, they did apologise, but this doesn't erase the fact that crusades happened, and God didn't do shit to stop them.

You have a very tender heart. Are you sure want to side with the devil and not God? There is NOTHING good in hell whatsoever. Some things in this life we cannot explain. Extreme evil is a mystery, as well as extreme good. We will only know all things when we are with God one day.


You explicitly stated (and even colored the word to make the statement seem more important) that the New Testament REPLACES Old Testament. The book of Genesis is in the old testament. Or are you saying now that only parts of Old Testament should be ignored? Then who are you to decide which parts? Again, you are contradicting yourself and failing to prove a point.

If you want to get hung up on semantics and thereby fail to miss the point, then that's your choosing. By now you know what my meaning is.


IF YOU WERE AT COURT FIGHTING FOR CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN AND A LAWYER ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION (and if the judge allowed the question), YOU WOULD BE DAMN REQUIRED TO ANSWER IT! Again, a hypothetical situation, i know. You're just avoiding the answer any way you can, which happens to be always the same way, same bullshit. So i'm going to take your avoidance as a YES. You're disgusting, and fucking DUMB.

I do not answer to wicked men of this earth, including yourself. May prayer is for God to show his love to you so that you will trust him, because as it stands you are very full of anger at God and that's a very dangerous thing. May God forgive you and bless you with whatever it takes to bring you to Him in a loving way. :)

For Real
11-21-2010, 08:12 PM
Out of context? OUT OF CONTEXT? The exact statement id very well IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GOSPEL! What's not to understand? Jesus basically ORDERS to kill anyone who disrespects thair parents (he gave that as an example) or their God. And the statement is put very well into the context, i didn't quote just that one line. What would mean "in the context" for you, would i have to quote the whole fucking Bible? Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolishe the old laws, but to fulfull them. He very well knew what the old laws said, and he endorsed them. AGAIN, you FAIL to prove a point.

And AGAIN, you FAIL to LEARN the point that was made for you. Let's quote the entire passage:

Matthew 15:1-7 Then some Pharisees and teacher of the Law came from Jerusalem to Jesus and asked him, "Why is it that your disciples disobey the teaching handed down by our ancestors? They don't wash their hands in the proper way before they eat!" Jesus answered, "And why do you disobey God's command and follow your own teaching? For God said, 'Respect your father and your mother,' and 'If you curse your father or your mother, you are to be put to death.' But you teach that if people have something they could use to help their father or mother, but say, 'This belongs to God,' they do not need to honor their father. In this way you disregard God's command, in order to follow your own teaching. You hypocrites! How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you!

Jesus' focus wasn't on the punishment portion of the old law that he quoted from the Old Testament. He quoted that law to show the Pharisees that they should not withhold simple things/help that could benefit one's parents by giving it to God instead. God doesn't want material things - he wants our hearts instead.


THERE IT IS. You finally answered my question. Had your kids disrespected yout God (and consequently you) by not going to church on Sunday, you would beat them up, perhaps even murder them. You really are a horrible person.

Did nothing of the sort. I am not living in Pre-Moses Old Testament times. I live in the time of Christ - and Christ's message is one of love. If anyone's a horrible person, it is YOU, for willfully failing to see Christ's message.


He sent his fucking son to DIE?

In this way, Jesus was truely human. He KNOWS what it is to die like us. Does Satan know this? Does Satan feel our pain? No, because Satan was never human. Again, a physical bodily death is the 1st death. The real evil is the 2nd death - the death of the soul. Jesus' suffering, death, burial, and resurrection happened so that our souls may live happily ever after in heaven.


The evil is still very well present in this world. Have you ever heard of, you know, wars, rape, murders, child abuse, thefts, terminal diseases, nazi concentration camps (that was during the WWII, but hey, it was WELL AFTER Jesus supposely died for our sins), and genocides?
God either can't help (the devil is stronger) and is not almighty, OR he is almighty but doesn't want to help because it's against his will (and is therefore a bad, unloving God).

Has the gospel been spread to all the nations of the Earth yet?

For Real
11-21-2010, 08:25 PM
Just in case she tries to dispute these, here are the direct lines from the Bible.

Psalm 25:12 - God chooses our way:
12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall He teach in the way that He shall choose.

Psalm 33:4 - The word of the Lord is right. All his works, good and evil, are in truth:
4 For the word of the LORD is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does. (This includes all the death and destruction of the old testament).

Acts 15:14-18 - God knows all his works from the beginning:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

And I already quoted the last one.

My bible has it a bit different:

Psalm 25:12 Those who have reverence for the Lord will learn from him the path they should follow.

Psalm 33:4 The words of the Lord are true, and all his works are dependable.

Acts 15:14-18
14 Simon has just explained how God first showed his care for the Gentiles by taking from among them a people to belong to him.

15 The words of the prophets agree completely with this. As the scripture says.

16 'After this I will return, says the Lord, and restore the kingdom of David. I will rebuild its ruins and make it strong again.

17 And so all the rest of the human race will come to me, all the Gentiles whom I have called to be my own.

18 So says the Lord, who made this known long ago.'

In my bible, verse 18 appears to be referring to the scripture of the prophets, which was already mentioned in verse 15.

For Real
11-21-2010, 09:06 PM
See, it's quotes like this that make me think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. You're reading so much post-hoc justification into the original text that clearly wasn't intended when it was written, and on top of that you're acting like everyone else should be able to see it as well. TVTropes.org has a word for this, "Fanon:"

How do you know what was intended or not intended? We are all on this Earth and able to read the bible and get from it what God shows our hearts. Who are you to say that God hasn't shown my heart an interpretation in addition to the obvious interpretation? If I'm wrong, then may God show me that, not you.


And on top of that, you seem to shamelessly (even proudly) view everyone else as "intellectually beneath you," in a tireless display of Christian elitism.

hah! I feel the same way about you!


There's really no use in trying to have even a light conversation with a person like that; all you'll get for your troubles is the repeated assertion that "I am above you intellectually," "I am enlightened and you are not," etc. Really not worth my time.


Again, I feel the same way towards you.


This is another instance of "fanon" twisted by NT proponents to allow for the reconciliation with the OT. Which is odd when you think about it, because it's not even necessary to reconcile this by Biblical canon --- Jesus' sacrifice of himself was supposed to act as a "coverage policy" for any and all blood sacrifices from that point on. So there's no need for sacrifices anymore.

There is no need for HUMAN sacrifices anymore - there's no need for the killing of humans done by other humans. However, God still wants these other types of sacrifices from all of us.


Which means that, if we accept YOUR logic here, then Christians have no grounds on which to enforce Biblical law,

Enforce by means of killing? Christians absolutely have no grounds to enforce by killing. I, personally, could not be on a jury trial where the death penalty was a very real probability. I would have to decline based on religious beliefs.


Translation: "Pray a lot, ignore what doesn't make sense, and then you'll be a true Christian." I just cannot do that, sorry.

There is nothing wrong with praying a lot. And if 'ignoring what doesn't make sense' means one's peace is not disrupted for the time being, then that makes perfect sense to a Christian like me. We can't know all things in this life. We will one day, but not right now. In the meantime, people like me are called to pray, pray, pray, offer up daily (non-killing) sacrifices, forgive others, and ask for forgiveness. That's it.


Poh-tay-to, poh-tah-to. You're making assumptions about people you don't know based on people you've met, or things you've been told in church or in the Bible. That is what prejudiced means. You would certainly call me a racist if I went around saying things about "black people" that I did not know, based on black people that I have met, would you not?

I'm sorry, but you seem to think that whatever I said about unbelievers and non-Christians turning to Christianity is a bad thing, when in actuality it is a good thing. I have not made any assumptions about anyone. If you are referring to what I said about people in Africa, India, and China turning to Christianity, then what makes you think I haven't seen this? I haven't met them personally, but I have seen many many many of these people embrace Christianity wholeheartedly because their god has failed them. And to answer another one of your statements about why God doesn't prevent evil, etc..... well, you should seek out some of these recent converts and ask them what made them turn to the Christian God - a good many will tell you about the miracles, signs, and wonders that the Christian God has done for them. Just the other day, AFTER, I wrote what I wrote here, I was treated to some TBN video footage of a mother in Cairo Egypt (of Moslem spiritual roots) who's son was miraculously healed of blindness when she prayed to the Christian God. I'm sorry, but I fail to see what is prejudiced about THAT! And I fail to see what is presumptuous about THAT! A picture doesn't lie. When I talk about these converts, I am not imagining them in my head, I actually get to see and experience (through TBN) exactly what they are seeing and experiencing. God is all over video tape. So, it is not something I've been told or read about in the bible - THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING NOW!! Praise and glory to God!!


Doesn't matter. God made him, god knew it would happen; therefore, God gave permission for that to happen, he allowed it to happen; he saw it coming, and yet did nothing to stop it.

I'm tired of debating this one with you. When you meet Jesus one day, you'll have to ask His Father more about it...


I prefer to never waste my time "hating" anyone, and instead focus on acting positively and getting rid of suffering. I guess since I'm not part of the Luxurious Christian Elite, I don't have time to go around hating things I don't like. Besides, if Satan were real, I'd say he had it bad enough by, you know, being in Hell for eternity. It'd be a waste of time to go on kicking such a person when he's down.

You are allowed to hate evil. Again, Satan is not "anyone". And he is very real. If you could meet him, you wouldn't care about him anymore and you'd stop having sympathy for him too. And he's not a person - don't ever make that mistake. He's an animal - far below us humans.


And this is the quote which proves that we cannot reconcile....we should just agree to disagree. I'll give you the last word after this post. I guess I do need to say "thanks" first, though --- because it's people like you who are increasing the ranks of nonbelievers around the world every day, by driving them away from Christianity with your nonsense-talk :D

My 'nonsense' talk stems from a book that you seem to know inside and out and yet don't really believe in... talk about NON-SENSE! :rolleyes:

If nonbelievers like you and others want to believe that God doesn't exist and that the devil doesn't exist, then ask yourselves this one last question:

IF NOTHING EXISTS, THEN HOW CAN IT BE NOTHING ANYMORE?

And with that, I bid you goodnight. God speed, and God bless.

Peace.

Little_Miss_1565
11-21-2010, 10:05 PM
One could say that if neither god nor the devil exist, that is not the same thing as saying nothing exists. Indeed, saying everything is either one or the other of god or the devil seems rather reductive...

Rooster
11-21-2010, 11:58 PM
You have a very tender heart. Are you sure want to side with the devil and not God? There is NOTHING good in hell whatsoever. Some things in this life we cannot explain. Extreme evil is a mystery, as well as extreme good. We will only know all things when we are with God one day.

That's it. I'm only quoting this part, since all you do is basically repeating points that others have already disproven. Even The Bible itself disproves your claims. And you're missing people's obvious points constantly, probably you're doing that intentionally. You're pathetic, not worthy of the time i spent debating this. In fact, you're not worth anyone's time. Though, i should say, thank God there are people like you, because as Static_Martyr said, people like you are turning others away from religion. The sooner you turn them all away the better, and then you and the likes can become extinct.


Do i want to side with the devil? Oh hell yes. I heard hell is a really nice place, it never ever snows in there, you don't have to worry about heating when building a house, and your grandma can bake you a pie without an oven.


You moronic whackjob. I don't believe in any God whatsoever, why on Earth would i believe devil exists? Fuck the devil and fuck God.


edit: On a side note, isn't it interesting that creationists claim evolution isn't real, since we can't observe it (their claims; evolution actually can be observed and there are tons of evidence to back the theory), but God is real despite the fact we can't see him either (and there are no evidences)?

ad8
11-24-2010, 04:03 AM
Just the other day, AFTER, I wrote what I wrote here, I was treated to some TBN video footage of a mother in Cairo Egypt (of Moslem spiritual roots) *whose* ;) son was miraculously healed of blindness when she prayed to the Christian God. I'm sorry, but I fail to see what is prejudiced about THAT! And I fail to see what is presumptuous about THAT! A picture doesn't lie. When I talk about these converts, I am not imagining them in my head, I actually get to see and experience (through TBN) exactly what they are seeing and experiencing. God is all over video tape. So, it is not something I've been told or read about in the bible - THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING NOW!! Praise and glory to God!!
I don't know whether or not to take this seriously. How can you actually take a tv station more seriously than your own judgmental power?
What is more real, interpreting every word in the bible literally and making up miracles to prove imaginary points or actually trying to find the actual values of the bible? I think you are actually on to those actual values (like love, forgiving and grace of charity) but the former inhibits the latter. So I strongly advise you to drop the former because that seems like the only way to not be contradicting about most of the things you say.



You are allowed to hate evil. Again, Satan is not "anyone". And he is very real. If you could meet him, you wouldn't care about him anymore and you'd stop having sympathy for him too. And he's not a person - don't ever make that mistake. He's an animal - far below us humans.

See, I actually think that it is fallacious to a) think that Satan is an actual physical being (even an animal) and b) that animals are "far below" humans.
This is counteracting the productive interpretation of the bible which in my opinion describes Satan as the philosophical entity of those things that oppose Christian values. If Satan were an actual creature, why would God not kill it? Why would God be dependent on humans when it came to killing Satan? How should humans defeat it at all? This literal interpretation makes no sense to me, while the abstract interpretation of the bible is one thing that I value and appreciate.
But again, these two ways of interpretation oppose one another and destroy the efficiency of the other.



My 'nonsense' talk stems from a book that you seem to know inside and out and yet don't really believe in... talk about NON-SENSE! :rolleyes:

If nonbelievers like you and others want to believe that God doesn't exist and that the devil doesn't exist, then ask yourselves this one last question:

IF NOTHING EXISTS, THEN HOW CAN IT BE NOTHING ANYMORE?
By being nothing. One of the things I appreciate about my mind is that it reliably predicts which stimuli in my mind are to be ignored because they are side effects of the work of my brain and which stimuli I should attend because they give me hints about what really happens in my environment.

Harleyquiiinn
11-24-2010, 05:59 AM
IF NOTHING EXISTS, THEN HOW CAN IT BE NOTHING ANYMORE?




I don't want to answer to that debate because everything I would have said have more or less been said. Besides, to me, religion is personnal so believe what you want.

Just one thing about what I quoted: Simple rhetoric is not enough to make a good argument.

You are talking to people who obviously have an opinion and know what they are talking about. So sentences that look good on the outside won't be enough.

For Real
12-09-2010, 07:33 PM
IF NOTHING EXISTS, THEN HOW CAN IT BE NOTHING ANYMORE?
I don't want to answer to that debate because everything I would have said have more or less been said. Besides, to me, religion is personnal so believe what you want.

Just one thing about what I quoted: Simple rhetoric is not enough to make a good argument.

You are talking to people who obviously have an opinion and know what they are talking about. So sentences that look good on the outside won't be enough.

Thanks for the complement ('...sentences that look good on the outside...'), but I can't take credit for it. It is a sentence (paraphrased) that a former atheist himself said. I turned it into a question/sentence. His actual statement was: If nothing exists, then it's not nothing anymore.

I wish I could remember his name, but I can't. He had an NDE (near death experience) and was taken in spirit body to heaven and was given visions of Jesus' life. He was a very peaceful man before his NDE experience. He was educated and a respectable citizen. His parents just never saw the need to rear him with any religious upbringing - but that all changed in mid-life when he had his NDE experience.

So, if one of you had asked me if an atheist could go to heaven, I would have said, "yes, absolutely". :D Because, had he not come back to life, he would have gone on to heaven and we would have never known what happened to him after he died the first time - that he got Christianized by Jesus Himself. While still in the spirit (during his NDE), after his visions, etc., he was sucked back into darkness and became afraid (darkness/fear was where he went initially upon 'dying'), but this time he shouted out for Jesus to save him and he was INSTANTLY taken into light/heaven. Next, angels asked him if he wanted to stay or go back - he chose to go back and tell everyone about his experience in order to convert atheists. Amazing, eh? There is much greater detail to his story, and I wish I could remember his name. If I come across it, I'll be sure to type it here in the future.

Rooster
12-09-2010, 11:53 PM
All of a sudden got an incredible urge to nail my desk to my forehead.

ad8
12-11-2010, 08:39 AM
So, if one of you had asked me if an atheist could go to heaven, I would have said, "yes, absolutely". :D Because, had he not come back to life, he would have gone on to heaven and we would have never known what happened to him after he died the first time - that he got Christianized by Jesus Himself. While still in the spirit (during his NDE), after his visions, etc., he was sucked back into darkness and became afraid (darkness/fear was where he went initially upon 'dying'), but this time he shouted out for Jesus to save him and he was INSTANTLY taken into light/heaven. Next, angels asked him if he wanted to stay or go back - he chose to go back and tell everyone about his experience in order to convert atheists. Amazing, eh? There is much greater detail to his story, and I wish I could remember his name. If I come across it, I'll be sure to type it here in the future.
These were enough details, but is there also evidence that this happened?

Punkrock1907
12-11-2010, 03:31 PM
woow
chating about religion or politica here?

For Real
12-12-2010, 01:12 AM
These were enough details, but is there also evidence that this happened?

Well, the evidence would be the complete 180 that occurred in his life. He came back as a changed man - sort of like how when Moses went up on the mountain and God spoke to him through a burning bush - they say he came back down the mountain changed.

Rooster
12-12-2010, 03:09 AM
Well, the evidence would be the complete 180 that occurred in his life. He came back as a changed man - sort of like how when Moses went up on the mountain and God spoke to him through a burning bush - they say he came back down the mountain changed.

I'm sorry, but this is not what could be considered as evidence. Him coming back as a changed man would be considered as the consequence of what happened to him, not evidence. However, what he claimed he saw, and that he was turned into a Christian by Jesus himself could happen merely in his mind, and not in reality (and therefore him being changed could be a consequence of something that happened only in his imagination). It could be the result of chemical reactions in his brain. Like a dream for example. And nobody can prove this really happened. He may believe it did, but it can not be proven, and there are no other witnesses that could confirm what he had "seen". You can't literaly see into somebody's mind, you know.


P.S.: Harleyquiiinn didn't mean that as a complement. She meant that by writing sentences that look good only on the outside but are otherwise useless, you won't change our mind, as we do seem to know what we're talking about (unlike you). Don't we?

For Real
12-12-2010, 10:33 AM
I'm sorry, but this is not what could be considered as evidence. Him coming back as a changed man would be considered as the consequence of what happened to him, not evidence. However, what he claimed he saw, and that he was turned into a Christian by Jesus himself could happen merely in his mind, and not in reality (and therefore him being changed could be a consequence of something that happened only in his imagination). It could be the result of chemical reactions in his brain. Like a dream for example. And nobody can prove this really happened. He may believe it did, but it can not be proven, and there are no other witnesses that could confirm what he had "seen". You can't literaly see into somebody's mind, you know.

Well, it may not be hard evidence, but it is something else known as "fruit" of the spirit. He told his story with conviction and genuiness. Everything in his life has changed. And now, because of his sharing of this NDE experience, others are benefitting from it - that is good "fruit".

Rooster
12-12-2010, 11:40 AM
Well, it may not be hard evidence, but it is something else known as "fruit" of the spirit. He told his story with conviction and genuiness. Everything in his life has changed. And now, because of his sharing of this NDE experience, others are benefitting from it - that is good "fruit".

Ok, but in what way is this beneficial to others? You mean that his story or "experience" is turning more people to God? I'm not sure if this was indeed to their benefit, though if they foud their "inner peace" by doing this then so be it. But if they were just fine before and they were already good people who did good deeds not because of hoping to please God but because of their own goodness, then i see this useless. As an atheist i don't find starting to believe into a being, which in my opinion doesn't even exist, beneficial in any way.

Llamas
12-12-2010, 01:06 PM
Well, it may not be hard evidence, but it is something else known as "fruit" of the spirit. He told his story with conviction and genuiness. Everything in his life has changed. And now, because of his sharing of this NDE experience, others are benefitting from it - that is good "fruit".

Someone who nearly died could also suffer from some sort of brain issue that makes them hallucinate or imagine things.

If god wanted people to go back to earth and tell people that god is really real and that we should all love him, why doesn't he do this with more people? Why is it just this guy? I've asked religious people before: if god is real, why doesn't he send people to earth to tell us he's real? These people always tell me that god wants people to come to him on their own accord - not because someone told them god is real. So that contradicts your story.

For Real
12-13-2010, 06:19 AM
Someone who nearly died could also suffer from some sort of brain issue that makes them hallucinate or imagine things.

If god wanted people to go back to earth and tell people that god is really real and that we should all love him, why doesn't he do this with more people? Why is it just this guy? I've asked religious people before: if god is real, why doesn't he send people to earth to tell us he's real? These people always tell me that god wants people to come to him on their own accord - not because someone told them god is real. So that contradicts your story.

Near Death Experiences involving God/angels have happened to other people - lots of other people. I just used this guy's story, because it fit my argument pertaining to atheists, since he used to be one himself. And God does send beings to earth to tell us he's real.

choosing/guiding = God does want people 'to come to Him on their own accord' - it's always their final choice; however, in these difficult times that we live in, we get God in the form of heavenly beings, NDE's, dream-visions, waking visions, and stuff. Basically, God is providing us little 'nudges'. If you ask the Christian elite (and I'm not really that... ) to answer you WHY/HOW is God doing this at this time that we live in, then they will tell you it is because of the prayers of the faithful. I imagine prayers going up to a big hopper of some sort in heaven and when that hopper overflows, then there's enough to now do extraordinary miracles - a cup runneth over. Cool. :cool:

Paint_It_Black
03-02-2011, 01:52 AM
Just in case she tries to dispute these, here are the direct lines from the Bible.

Psalm 25:12 - God chooses our way:
12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall He teach in the way that He shall choose.

Psalm 33:4 - The word of the Lord is right. All his works, good and evil, are in truth:
4 For the word of the LORD is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does. (This includes all the death and destruction of the old testament).

Acts 15:14-18 - God knows all his works from the beginning:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

And I already quoted the last one.

Did For Real just completely ignore this?