Thread For Christians Only.

[(Q)]

Oh yes, I think that all religions are wrong and only one truth of God.

That's not the answer, the answer is all religions are wrong and manmade, could you entertain that one?

There are about 40 authors from mostly different time periods.

With differing accounts and opinions - hardly a consensus.

Could you really have a choice? If you knew God DID exist and told you where your choice to not follow him would lead. Would you have a choice to NOT follow God?

Of course, it is ones free will to choose.

Again, if God were to reveal his entire self leaving no question among men, would that make faith irrelevant, and us not having to prove ourselves true by having faith?

What's more important to god, faith in him or knowing him? I suspect the latter.

I have recently stepped away from what my own concept of God is based on what I wanted, letting God be who he is without my inhibitions

Excellent, step further away now to really see if god reveals himself to you.

He wished to blind and mask himself to all but those who believe and seek him.

That is a manmade concept to deceive those into believing a god exists. A true god would not play hide and seek.

So, you have no choice but to be blinded.

If god were truly omniscient, he would know that playing hide and seek would result in people not knowing him, that there would be a multitude of religions and views of god, which is exactly the case.

Why would others, those who wrote the scriptures, say such things? Is it because god revealed himself to only them and no one else may know him except through those he revealed himself. We already know the result of that, why didn't god?

 

[jayleew]

Oh yes, I think that all religions are wrong and only one truth of God.

That's not the answer, the answer is all religions are wrong and manmade, could you entertain that one?

Yes, all religions are manmade and wrong, but if there is a god, he is the god of the Christians. There is truth found in all religions, but not the gospel truth. The only way to an afterlife is through Jesus Christ. There are at least seven accounts off the top of my head that concurr.

There are about 40 authors from mostly different time periods.

With differing accounts and opinions - hardly a consensus.

They are not differing accounts besides the old law and new testaments, but the bridge is Jesus Christ.

Could you really have a choice? If you knew God DID exist and told you where your choice to not follow him would lead. Would you have a choice to NOT follow God?

Of course, it is ones free will to choose.

I suppose, but any other choice given those circumstances would be as foolish.

Again, if God were to reveal his entire self leaving no question among men, would that make faith irrelevant, and us not having to prove ourselves true by having faith?

What's more important to god, faith in him or knowing him? I suspect the latter.

This is told over and over from among the authors that it is more important to believe and have faith in God, than to just know about him. There were a ton of people who knew about him, but chose to not follow him and were destroyed or cursed. On the other hand, on numerous occasions Jesus rewarded faith.

I have recently stepped away from what my own concept of God is based on what I wanted, letting God be who he is without my inhibitions

Excellent, step further away now to really see if god reveals himself to you.

I'm not sure what you are implying here.

He wished to blind and mask himself to all but those who believe and seek him.

That is a manmade concept to deceive those into believing a god exists. A true god would not play hide and seek.

Where do you get your definition of a "true god". Do you mean your preference, perception, and understanding of what a true god should be?

I gave you a logical example of why one would play hide and seek. Is that not what you would do if you were rich and wanted to ensure your mate's uninhibited and unconditional love?

So, you have no choice but to be blinded.

If god were truly omniscient, he would know that playing hide and seek would result in people not knowing him, that there would be a multitude of religions and views of god, which is exactly the case.

Why would others, those who wrote the scriptures, say such things? Is it because god revealed himself to only them and no one else may know him except through those he revealed himself. We already know the result of that, why didn't god?

Hah! That is what he wants (or so scripture repeats). It seems you don't like that and would expect a god to act differently. Jesus said he came to pit us against each other. God wasn't a fan of traditions and personal perceptions and interpretations getting in the way of the truth. At least once, when he laid his vengence, he told the angels to start at His temple (God's own clergymen!). That shows what God thinks of religions when they go astray and get trapped in their own preference, perception, or interpretation of his word.

Aside from that, the accounts of Israel and Moses, God changed his mind after talking with Moses about destroying his people and making a new nation of Moses. An omniscient god would not "play dumb" like that, or would it?

It's my opinion that things as they are, God can be sure that those that believe, love him and believe in him of their own choice without any inhibitions.

It remains to be proven whether God is omnisicient or not. Scripture does say many times and infer that he knows what you and I are thinking presently, and in the past. I don't know and it doesn't matter to me.

 

[(Q)]

if there is a god, he is the god of the Christians.

Thank you Jay, that pretty much says it all.

They are not differing accounts besides the old law and new testaments, but the bridge is Jesus Christ.

He came to correct that which god erred?

I suppose, but any other choice given those circumstances would be as foolish.

Agreed.

This is told over and over from among the authors that it is more important to believe and have faith in God, than to just know about him.

Jay, those are the authors talking. Think about it.

Do you mean your preference, perception, and understanding of what a true god should be?

Any god, it really doesn't matter. I cannot conceive of a god as claimed by theists.

Is that not what you would do if you were rich and wanted to ensure your mate's uninhibited and unconditional love?

Of course not, that would be selfish and you would lose that person. If uninhibited and unconditional love is your goal, that's exactly what you have to show, even as a god.

Hah! That is what he wants (or so scripture repeats).

No Jay, that is what the authors want you to believe. Think about it.

God changed his mind... An omniscient god would not "play dumb"

Jay, an omniscient god doesn't change his mind - he is omniscient - infinitely wise, all-knowing.

It remains to be proven whether God is omnisicient or not.

Good point, if we were created in his image, it would show he is somewhat... human.

 

[Huwy]

I'm sorry to read your son is dead snakelord.

Notice how, Instead of giving you compassion like "Jesus would" the "Christian" uses it against you, and makes a threat "you will never see your son!"

That has to be one of the lowest possible threats to make.
I can't believe how low that is.

Hey "Christian", Didn't "God" give you a conscience? Or at least teach you how to respect others?

Let me tell you something Christian, you will never see your god. You'll only continue to believe, under a delusion that he exists.

Much the same way a child believes the tooth fairy exists. And Santa Claus exists.
Would a child under a certain age, question that existence? Not at all.
Everyone he knows tells him that the tooth fairy and santa and the easter bunny is real. They put money under the pillow, chocolate around the garden, presents under the tree - its evidence! Whats more, the child WANTS to believe its real.

But thats ok for children. Thats one of the magical things about being young.

I believe our society is immature. We have a large portion, who hold on to these fantasies, which are created out of the fear of our own mortality.

Capitalising on the mortality of others and using it as a threat for your pathetic argument is so low, that its not just intellectually offensive, its morally and emotionally offensive, and if I knew you, "christian" I would test whether "God" would punish me for beating down on you for what you have said to mr. Snakelord here.
I'm willing to bet god wouldn't even notice.

 

[jayleew]

if there is a god, he is the god of the Christians.

Thank you Jay, that pretty much says it all.

They are not differing accounts besides the old law and new testaments, but the bridge is Jesus Christ.

He came to correct that which god erred?

No. Man made interpretations of his laws and God had patience with imperfectness for a time. The moment Adam took the apple, he knew what he had to prepare a plan if we were to have the worth to live among him in heaven. Maybe he even knew Adam's imperfectness and put the tree in the garden anyway to still give Adam the choice to reject God (as you and I have discussed earlier), but knew that Adam would fall and God would have to do a lot of work to give a created being the right to live among him.

Jesus came to fullfill the whole law, something that everyone was unable to do up to that point. Then, he being God's son, simplified the faith so that even a child could find his own way to God, and then died so that we could be worthy in our imperfectness. This is what the old testament (mostly Isaiah) and the new testament proclaim.

Jay, those are the authors talking. Think about it.

Yes, they are men and if it were just one, or if they were not consistent with the main thing, I would not give them credit.

Do you mean your preference, perception, and understanding of what a true god should be?

Any god, it really doesn't matter. I cannot conceive of a god as claimed by theists.

But you are hinting that you could conceive of a god that is not claimed by theists. Does that not limit God to your imagination?

Is that not what you would do if you were rich and wanted to ensure your mate's uninhibited and unconditional love?

Of course not, that would be selfish and you would lose that person. If uninhibited and unconditional love is your goal, that's exactly what you have to show, even as a god.

That would mean you would have to have faith in your spouse that he or she is marrying you for the right reasons. That might work on Earth, but I cannot think of a case where the rich and famous have been able to hold a spouse down very long. Can you? However, concerning the relationship between a creator and the created instead of the relationship between spouses, it is necessary for the created to have faith in the creator not the other way around. Isn't it?

Hah! That is what he wants (or so scripture repeats).

No Jay, that is what the authors want you to believe. Think about it.

You're right. I believe them because they are consistent in the main things. But, my faith would be flawed if I had faith in the authors of the Bible. I have faith in God because of what I have been through and I see his hand by hindsight in my life and the lives of others. But, I see the lives of loved ones who are lost deep in immorality and who don't give a care. It pains me, it doesn't have to be that way, we can all work together for the greater good. Cooperation is better than competition for a group of people. I will leave their dignity and not discuss their actions here. And truly, the big difference (the difference that matters) between them and I, is that I see the times I screw my brother over and I try to humble myself and fix it and move on. And it happens to be that I am that way because I am repaying the debt I owe Jesus Christ.

God changed his mind... An omniscient god would not "play dumb"

Jay, an omniscient god doesn't change his mind - he is omniscient - infinitely wise, all-knowing.

Correct, so being that God did scripturally change his mind, is he omniscient? I doubt it, but I cannot say for sure. I'd say 99% he is not omniscient because of that one instance of him changing his mind, but I leave room for something that is greater than my meager intellect.

 

[Avatar]

I said - Christians Only Thread !!!!!

READ MY INSTRUCTIONS.

I WILL NOT BE REPLYING TO ANY ATHEIST OR ANY NON CHRISTIAN.

THANK YOU.

THE CREATOR LOVES YOU. !!!!!

aaw, too bad, because we will be talking here

 

[Marlin]

This thread is like putting up a sign on your back that says, "Don't Kick Me!" Good luck with that, AB.

You're Welcome!!!

 

[SkinWalker]

So he says he won't be "replying to any atheist or any non-xian" but tells me I "don't want to argue scripture" with him?

I do. I'd be happy to. AB, posit anything you want with regard to scripture.

 

[(Q)]

The moment Adam took the apple...

Sorry Jay, I'm not interested in discussing fairy tales.

Then, he being God's son, simplified the faith so that even a child could find his own way to God

Obviously not simplified enough as many do not find their way to god, at least not your version of god.

Yes, they are men and if it were just one, or if they were not consistent with the main thing, I would not give them credit.

Those men were the authors. They wrote fiction.

But you are hinting that you could conceive of a god that is not claimed by theists. Does that not limit God to your imagination?

The only gods I can conceive are from the imagination, just like everyone else.

That might work on Earth, but I cannot think of a case where the rich and famous have been able to hold a spouse down very long. Can you?

Of course, there are plenty.

it is necessary for the created to have faith in the creator not the other way around. Isn't it?

Not if that faith is unfounded or blinded.

But, my faith would be flawed if I had faith in the authors of the Bible.

They were the authors, Jay.

 

[Hapsburg]

The devil is a god?

The fictional character of Satan certainly wields godlike power, but he's just that- a fictional character of a fairytale. The wolf of red hood, the witch of hansel und gretel. Fairytale fantasy character, nothing more, just like 99% of the people in biblical text.

 

[Cyperium]

An incredibly daft statement. It's not a case of 'allowing' if the being exists and is shown to exist. In thousands of years man has accomplished nothing to show existence of such a being. If it was shown to exist then I would 'allow' it, because it exists.

That's all there is to it and I'm certainly not asking for too much. You guys can't show it at all and as such have no choice but to fall back on: "you have to believe for no reason", which is simply ludicrous.

It is a case of 'allowing', it's not that you should try to make a image of God, God said "I am what I am", faith in God is as simple as just allowing Him to be there, since you cannot know what God looks like, and do know that He is all-good and all-loving then that is not such a hard thing to do.

If the "all-loving" god can't manage something as simple as that, then there's a serious problem.

Don't you see what I mean? You think God can't manage such a simple thing as that? God can do anything. But God has a plan in which He is not visible to us like the rest of the world is. Expecting God to show yourself to you is too much by your own standards, you can't believe it and you can't expect it - wrong? Expect little and you can believe it, why should you ask for something you don't believe in? Ask for belief first, but if you ask you should be prepared to let it in. That would be like me calling someone and then just refuse to let him in.

My son isn't "alright" - he's dead.

Dead from the world but not dead in Gods eyes. It is as simple to Him to show Himself as it is to remake a human, God has no difficulty. It is entirely up to Him and everything He do has meaning. There is no reason to mock Him, or even to mock my words about Him, that is simply a failed understanding of what God is. I know it is not right for me to explain Him to you. It is not up to me. You should build your own oppinion, but people forgot.

What I write to you is my oppinion and my understanding about God. Nothing else.

Let me explain this simply for you in the hope that it might lead you to some understanding:

I am an atheist. Your statement is akin to me telling you that you can't do anything without Lenny the Leprechaun. Completely stupid yes? A complete waste of time yes?

A) It didn't in any way aid the discussion,

B) It is totally unjustified, and without any worth or value.

C) It's far too sweeping to have any meaning..

What you're saying is:

A man can't be gay without god,
A man can't kill his neighbour without god,
A man can't go to hell without god.

What exactly do you mean "anything"? Can I pour myself some corn flakes without god? Can I wipe my botty without god?

What you do by saying we can't do anything without god, is make him entirely responsible for everything - he is responsible for our sins, he is responsible for our beliefs, he was the one that made Hitler kill millions of jews.

But anyway, you can't do anything without Lenny the Leprechaun.

What I am saying is that a man can't do anything without God, and yes, not even wipe their botty. God is above all else. Therefor we should do things by His will. Not our own. Killing someone is clearly not Gods will, but God has made no limitations for us, our will is a free will. God is not responsible for killing millions of jews, He didn't make Hitler kill those Jews, He allowed Hitler to do what he wanted as he allows everyone of us to do what we want. You cannot move a finger without God. God gave the law, and it said that you shall not kill, therefor Hitler acted against God. God do not handle us like puppets on a string, God "moves" us at our will to do what we want. It is a gift from God.

That is my understanding of Him.

A) It didn't in any way aid the discussion.
- but it was worth a try.

B) It is totally unjustified, and without any worth or value.
- it has worth and value to me, that's why I said it. It may not appear justified for the sake of the discussion, but it was justified at the time.

C) It's far too sweeping to have any meaning..
- It is that "sweeping" because it can be seen in so many ways. I can understand that it is hard to appreciate it's meaning when you do not know exactly what way it should be interpreted to actually have meaning.

Ok then, how are you justified to say god exists?

It is my belief and my oppinion, by other means I am not justified.

Won't help what?

Won't help the discussion. Discussions like "who is the best you or I?" won't go anywhere and is unrewarding, cause even if someone is better to say he's best, it wouldn't be the truth of the matter anyway.

Without sounding harsh: I don't have the slightest care for you or about you. You're some unknown dude on the other side of the planet that has no impact on my life. What is there to think less of? I come here, have a discussion, log off, bonk the wife and go to sleep. What you believe is of zero consequence to me.

I understand that, but nevertheless you sound like you think less of people. You should then choose your words to reflect your meaning. That's because I don't know you. Otherwise I might think that you really don't mean anything by it. But I don't know you so what you said will be seen by me as my experiance has shown me.

I allready did. Didn't you even read my post? Specifically the part that said: "Not only is it wrong".

Sorry, thought you meant morally wrong.

Hopefully somewhere better than to tell me I can't do a shit, or smoke a cigarette without god

It can't lead to anything better, because that is my understanding of God. You could better your examples and appreciate what is given to you though.

Why you asking me? You're your own person, (then again wait, no you're not.. you can't do anything without god - so bloody ask him).

If I say something to someone that allready thinks I'm a idiot, then it will in his eyes be based on me being a idiot. That is not a good base, it wouldn't lead very far would it? Sometimes it's hard to see the idea behind the words, and it's even harder if we think the one who wrote it is a idiot. Why should we care then? If I don't know someone then I have no bias against him, I'd rather then have bias for him so that I give him good grounds and a chance to explain himself. Then maybe I get a much better understanding of him... sorta like "innocent until proven guilty".

Well that's silly. I'm an atheist. It's like me telling you you think Lenny the Leprechaun is bad. It has no value.

It has value. There's nothing without value. Allthough Lenny the Leprechaun is fictional there is still a emotional value. Even Leprechaun itself has a emotional value.

It might have something to do with Leprechauns having a ideal of freedom, thus it has a emotional value concerning freedom. Fantasy also in some way equals freedom and it seems to be good for us. By fantasy we can also teach morals, by pictures. Even Jesus did that.

Jesus is not a fictional character as Lenny the leprechaun is, neither is God.

Lenny the leprechaun has no defined place in reality while God most certainly has, God is the definition of God. There is only one true God, allthough we people can conceive of many other gods, there is only one true - that has all the properties of being God, and has all the meaning God should have. It is wrong to think of God as being shattered into many other gods, like one god for spring and one for fall, winter and summer. One for harvest and one for war etc. It is also wrong to think that we humans can conceive of gods as much as to make a picture of them, or statue.

God is not clearly defined, as is many other gods, simply because we don't know as much as to clearly define Him. We know He is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, actually the greatest we can perceive and greater still.

We don't even know Gods name, Jahve is what He said we should call Him, "I am what I am". That is still the best definition of Him, there is nothing that is easier to believe in nor easier to take in.

However, let me explain that it is hard to discuss and debate an issue from a position of non-belief, (it leads to a very short discussion, and I like long discussions).

Basically you'd say: "god loves you", and I'd say: "no such being". That's the end of that. For the sake of a longer discussion I have little choice but to start on the basis of existence. It's the same when I discuss the latest Star Trek episodes with some friends. They'll ask: "who's the strongest alien?" - I could reply "it's all fake", but I actually prefer to discuss the matter from a position of existence - i.e "species 8472 kick borg ass".

Understand what I'm saying?

Yes I do understand what you are saying. I just don't think God deserves to be equal to fictional characters which has no place in the real world while God do have a place in the real world, we do have a need for Him - a real need, so great that it should exist, not only because we in our suffering need Him, but in order for everything to work we need Him, what else could be the process behind it all? What if we invent something so that we live forever? What would be the meaning of that? What if we invent something in order to bring back the consciousness of everyone that has ever lived and make "fake" bodies or robots that they can be in? Only to bring them back to misery?

I don't think god's bad - because there is no such being. What I do discuss is matters that are in the bible, (that many christians consider to be the word of god), that quite clearly show god as anti-human. He has killed more humans than any other being in the history of the universe - and that just doesn't sit right with me. I guess my sense of morals differ to his, and yours.

God can do anything He wants, we are not in position to judge Him. God is not unjust, He wants as many as possible to be saved. There is no need for a judger of God, God is the one who judge and His judgement is just and fair and full of mercy. We shouldn't expect Him to change His view of fairness and justice because we are less. Mercy is what allows Him to save a man that is judged by the law.

That's a very shallow statement to make. Not once in our discussions have you agreed with me on anything. Should I now sit here saying this is a one-sided discussion all because we disagree or because you seemingly don't appreciate what I'm saying?

I do appreciate what you are saying. Surely I must have agreed on something? But of course if you say God doesn't exist then I must disagree since I believe that He exists. On more general matters I'm sure I have agreed once in a while, if not to you I have certainly agreed to other atheists about different matters, I can understand you though even if I don't agree with your oppinion. By onesided I don't mean that you disagree on everything, it's rather that you don't seem to take any effort to try understanding what I'm saying. It feels like I'm talking to someone that isn't even interested. If I use common sense, still I get turnaways and goarounds.

Maybe it's easier if you don't compare as much to other theists? I'm thinking even the word "theist" smells bad for you?

I'm not saying you shouldn't want me to agree with you - that in itself is fine, It's when you make statements like the last one that I must raise an eyebrow.

But you should understand that I don't mean to say anything wrong and that what I say is what I feel, thus not blaming or otherwise infecting the discussion. I may have contributed into making the discussion one-sided, if I have I'll think about it.

While that's a very sweet and noble sentence, it's seemingly targetted solely at me. I can happily say the exact same thing right back at ya, but I generally don't try and stoop to such depths when I have little to say concerning the actual discussion at hand. If you think I'm going to just sign on the dotted line the second you make a claim, you might aswell pull up a chair - 'cause you're gonna be here a long time.

It's not targetted solely at you. Sure I targeted at you since it is you that I discuss with, but not solely, what I can say to you I also can say to others, and what I have to say to you I also try to follow myself.

I think what is frustrating is that we don't appreciate this discussion equally, I really try to give you some idea of why I believe in God, but I don't get that back in a serious way (not often anyway). I don't mean that you should instantly agree with everything I say, I mean that you should respect it as being my oppinion. You can point out fallacies in my oppinion if you want but don't just write it off as unreal and idiotic.

What are you chatting about? That was the first post you'd made the statement that nobody can see god and live, and if you look at my quote you pasted, you'll see I agree. When did I "fail to understand" something that you only just mentioned and I instantly agreed with?

Sorry, I misunderstood the whole thing.... thought I said the first statement in a earlier post.

Here's a better answer to you:

Given your earlier statement it can only be stated that I would die, as would you and as would everyone else. Duh, do you even pay attention to your own statements?

My earlier statement reflected the point that no one can see God and live. The next reflected the absurdity that a man with weakness (any man) can handle Gods sudden appearence, you don't think it would be too much for one day?

He doesn't show Himself to you and not to anyone else either. It's like candy, if you get then everyone wants some . He made Himself known to us through Jesus, so by knowing Jesus we can know God. The knowledge of God is not complete to us, nor is the knowledge of Jesus complete to us. There are reasons why God doesn't show Himself to everyone.

 

[SkinWalker]

Jesus is not a fictional character as Lenny the leprechaun is, neither is God.

And the evidence is?

 

[Cyperium]

Jesus is not a fictional character as Lenny the leprechaun is, neither is God.

And the evidence is?

I don't believe Jesus and God are fictional, but if you believe that then they are still not fictional as Lenny the leprechaun is.

 

[Avatar]

And the evidence is?

Donst speak that cursed name lest you want to find yourself in hell! Yes, hell, where devils will burn your bottom with sharpened metal spikes.

 

[Hapsburg]

I don't believe Jesus and God are fictional, but if you believe that then they are still not fictional as Lenny the leprechaun is.

Leprechauns are more real than your god and jesus.
They're just wealthy irish midgets.

 

[786]

He made Himself known to us through Jesus, so by knowing Jesus we can know God.

That is true but not completely. God made himself known through Abraham, David, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Isaac, Ishmael, peace be upon them all.

God made himself known through ALL the prophets from the beginning. Jesus (pbuh) is only one of them.

Peace be unto you

 

[Cyperium]

That is true but not completely. God made himself known through Abraham, David, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Isaac, Ishmael, peace be upon them all.

God made himself known through ALL the prophets from the beginning. Jesus (pbuh) is only one of them.

Peace be unto you

Yes, but since Jesus is Gods Son, knowing Jesus is knowing God, knowing Abraham is not knowing God, neither is knowing anyone else of those prophets, even if knowing their words is good for the knowledge of God.

And peace be unto you too

 

[Cyperium]

Leprechauns are more real than your god and jesus.
They're just wealthy irish midgets.

Ahh...I thought he meant unicorns (you know the horse with a horn on it's head).

 

[786]

Yes, but since Jesus is Gods Son, knowing Jesus is knowing God, knowing Abraham is not knowing God, neither is knowing anyone else of those prophets, even if knowing their words is good for the knowledge of God.

And peace be unto you too

Sir even David is the Son of God, and even the Jews are the sons of God. I think you forget to read the Bible regarding what really is the meaning of "son" of God.

Peace be unto you

 

[Cyperium]

Sir even David is the Son of God, and even the Jews are the sons of God. I think you forget to read the Bible regarding what really is the meaning of "son" of God.

Peace be unto you

Yes, but Jesus was with God from the beginning - even before the world was made, and born without a earthly father, and it was written that truly He must be the Son of God. Why would they say that if they knew themselves as sons of God. He also sent His only Son to the world which was Jesus.

Still, peace be unto you too