what is the purpose of repentance?

[SnakeLord]

No not at all. You see because of what he has done he has saved everyone who lived before him as well. You are forgetting his sacrifice as paid for all our sins before during and after his time. It doesn't matter when the price is paid - just the fact that it has been.

Ok then, so we're all saved. You, me, atheists, satanists, hindus, muslims and paedophiles. Thanks jesus. That it?

I don't understand why you are bringing this up.

Figures. It was because you said: "they all follow the same god", which whether you acknowledge it or not, is complete nonsense.

You are debating with someone here that believes the Christian God not anyone elses.

Sure, but that doesn't mean you can answer the same for every human in mankinds history. You follow one specific god, not all of them did. You claimed that they did. You're wrong.

I don't have your luxury to bring other gods into the arguement because otherwise I wouln't be true to my own beliefs.

That's ridiculous. You could say: "the ancient Sumerians believed in Tiamat and Marduk", without being non-true to your beliefs. They did believe in Marduk and Tiamat, they did worship them. That's the way it is, and has nothing to do with your beliefs.

So unfortuantely they are irrelevant to my line of arguement here.

Well then don't make false claims.

I believe he is real and IMHO I believe there is a lot of evidence about that reinforces my belief.

I love it when you people say this. It leads to the question that never gets answered:

What evidence?

You are making a unfair generalisation here.

No I'm not.

Yes God does go pretty psycho in the first few books, even to the point that he wipes out everything.

See.

Bear in mind I think that these stories are part allegorical.

That's the way it always is with you people. It's always allegorical unless you decide otherwise.

But there is more than enough to counter balance that in the bible with acts of kindness and goodness.

Just as a small point: Hitler was known to be very polite to his friends, Saddam Hussein did some really nice things, satan is known for his acts of kindness - giving people whatever they ask for.

Do acts of kindness/goodness mean a being is no longer a psychopath for annihilating every single human on the planet? You consider Hitler evil and yet he didn't even manage to kill one billionth the amount of people god killed. So you define someone being good as using the word love sometime after killing everyone?

Bizarre.

Yes you are probably right here. But then we don't know what it will be like. Maybe sitting in the presence of God gives you such immense joy that you never want it to end....who knows.

You seem to be making a very loud statement here, along the lines of: "nobody knows". This equates to: Any details concerning heaven are purely make believe.

If you are talking about Grace here then you are very wrong I'm afraid. There are many examples of grace throughout the bible.

Sure, and there are many examples of psychosis throughout the bible. You seem unwilling to state that god was a psychopath so why would I be any more willing to say he was graceful?

For instance the Prodgical son, the Master paying the workers the same money for different lengths of time they work.

Strange, because in human terms such a thing would bring about a legal case. Most humans would obviously disagree with you that that's a good thing.

 

[water]

Someone who seems intent on wanting to throw such a search in a bad light, as if to discourage it like it is something deserving of severe humiliation and scorn.

It gets severe humiliation and scorn. And to avoid this, on must ...

Make one preliminary mistake and stop examining: and there will be no further investigation ...

Of course! How can there be further examination if you stop?

No, I meant: Say that the preliminary conclusion is that a certain line of thinking is a dead end, and that it should not be further examined. What if this preliminary conclusion is a mistake?

Say that you have headaches, and what is causing them is a tumor. You go to the doctor, and since you don't have all the signs indicating a tumor, and since one of the reasons for headaches is bad sight, he sends you to the optician. You get new glasses, and that's it. And meanwhile the tumor keeps growing, until it is too late ...

You did say that preliminary conclusions should suffice to make a decision.

I'll hold you to these words then, and quote you whenever you talk about an empirical process or a moral judgement again. "These systems are a joke, and therefore not to be taken seriously."

They are to be taken seriously because of the impact they have -- threat of punishment and punishment -- but otherwise, they are quite a joke.

Infinite loop. Truth is a matter of objective reality, objective reality is intangible directly. An absolute. This is then the same kind of argument as the one that God is unknowable.

What you don't seem to realize is that this is itself a truth statement, as if it does exists. "Truth is..." assumes that truth "is" something. How did you come to this conclusion? Shouldn't you doubt it?

Of course I doubt it!
That is the whole problem of the matter! I can doubt anything.
How does one stop doubting? It is not an act of will.

I'll tell you what it is: it's a preliminary conclusion that you have come to on your (endless) search for truth, guided by your faith in its existence and nature. You won't find all if it under the couch one day.

Hah, that's because we don't have a couch. We have a sofa.

Something doesn't cease to be true if you don't believe in it. Even Jesus didn't just fall from the sky: He acted within a certain discourse, gave enough evidence to support his teachings to those who were inclined to listen, and that's what we're presented with - but you must still examine and deal with it personally, one way or another. It just becomes irrelevant an unable to make a difference to you if you don't believe it. And that's not all: I am part of the context by which you came to consider his teachings. I claim to be a Christian, and my testimony is part of the information you have to consider.

It is my word against yours then.

I don't have to be "further from him than everyone else". It suffices that I am far enough.

But you're not, and thinking so does not make it so.

How am I not far from God?! If I were close, then I wouldn't be asking all those questions and having all those doubts, would I?!

At least, not if we're talking about the God of the Bible and of Christ, which isn't certain either. You might be talking about "the god out of whose reach I am", in which case he is defined by your statement, and I can't tell much about him other than that.

If the God of the Bible and of Christ is everywhere -- why don't I see Him? What a rebellious self-blinded monster I must be!

So your principles are fallible, because they depend on your fists?

Yes.

Then it must be that I am deaf.

Or you can't read. If words can be spoken, they can be written down.

I can read. But like I said above, it must be that I am some horrible, filthy, hideous monster for not seeing this loving God of the Bible and of Christ.

I said you consume such a person with "fists and mighty blows". I was talking about you versus anybody who challenges the belief that you are a "failure" where other people would be just "people".

I am perfectly harmless.

That does not make him innocent, which he believes he is.

What he *says* is one thing; what he truly *believes* may be something else.

I guess it might go through a particularly hardened criminal's mind not to admit guilt because it would make his accusers look good, or superior to him.

"A particularly hardened criminal's mind"? Then I have "a particularly hardened criminal's mind" as well.
This trial isn't about truth, justice, honour, guilt. It is about who wins. And in this game, the principle of choosing the lesser evil over a greater one is applied, by Milosevic -- or so it seems.
No court is interested in truth, only in justice -- or what seems to be justice.

But holding onto your honour when you have none left

You think so? Who determines whether you have honour?

"...the man who provoked the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991 and full-scale war with NATO in 1999, Milosevic constantly stoked vehement nationalism and ethnic prejudice among his fellow countrymen, leading to civil wars that killed or maimed hundreds of thousands"

Scape goat thinking. Hitler is a bad guy, right? It was he himself who started the whole Nazi thing. Hitler himself personally made thousands of people to become Nazis -- they were perfectly good people, but then mean mean Hitler came, pointed a gun at each person's head, and made them become Nazis.
This is what happens when they put ONE man to trial and make him responsible for everything.

The peoples in the Balkans never liked eachother much, to put it bluntly. They'll fight again, until the stronger or luckier one wins.

I don't think a clear conscience is enough to undo that. Milosevic didn't attack America, and if it weren't for international courts, he wouldn't have had to answer to them or anybody else. Nobody is innocent, but that doesn't mean looking for justice is a joke.

Looking for justice in the evolution? Eh.

Nor does it make the words "You are bad, you should crawl before me!" defensible, not for a country or for any person - you should realize that.

What happened to Germany and Japan after WW2?

A "peaceful, meaningful and hopeful existence"?! You must be joking!

Yes, if you believe that those things exist and you are on their side, then you live your life towards them. And I don't mean sitting under a Bo tree giggling at buterflies.

Surely, I can understand how *you* believe in those things.

 

[Jenyar]

It gets severe humiliation and scorn. And to avoid this, on must ...

Push past the pain, because humiliation and scorn isn't what you're looking for.

No, I meant: Say that the preliminary conclusion is that a certain line of thinking is a dead end, and that it should not be further examined. What if this preliminary conclusion is a mistake?

Say that you have headaches, and what is causing them is a tumor. You go to the doctor, and since you don't have all the signs indicating a tumor, and since one of the reasons for headaches is bad sight, he sends you to the optician. You get new glasses, and that's it. And meanwhile the tumor keeps growing, until it is too late ...

You did say that preliminary conclusions should suffice to make a decision.

But you're ignoring the word "preliminary" completely. The preliminary conclusion is that you need a doctor, the decision is to go an see him. The doctor makes a preliminary conclusion, and refers you to a specialist.

If your preliminary conclusion is that this line of thinking is a dead end, then you test it to see if it is a dead end. You use all the tools at your disposal, consult the people you consider knowledgeable, and you refine your conclusions. The decisions will be: what tools to use, which people to talk to, etc. Eventually you will have conclusions on many peripheral (or what you thaught were peripheral) matters, and these again will inform your further decisions.

They are to be taken seriously because of the impact they have -- threat of punishment and punishment -- but otherwise, they are quite a joke.

To see them as a joke is the luxury of someone who does not have to take them seriously.

Of course I doubt it!
That is the whole problem of the matter! I can doubt anything.
How does one stop doubting? It is not an act of will.

"Infinite loop. Truth is a matter of objective reality, objective reality is intangible directly. An absolute. This is then the same kind of argument as the one that God is unknowable."​

You stopped doubting for long enough to come to the above preliminary conclusion, didn't you? When you acted on it, expressed your thought, you made a decision. Now test it, refine it, and make another preliminary conclusion. It surely is an infinite loop, and we don't want it to be. Many other things aren't infinite loops, because they don't stay in the mind. Reality interferes, and we should let it, if we believe reality is relevant.

When examining something, I think you are actually examining your beliefs about something. You are trying to find out what the is to doubt. If you look for doubts, you will certaintly find them - and you don't have to act so surprised about it.

It is my word against yours then.

So you have decided not to doubt your word, suddenly? Are you saying you don't believe Jesus existed? Is that a claim I hear?

It is only "against" my word if it is something that you consider worthy of belief, and if you are so convinced of its truth I will certainly investigate it further!

I believe in the trustworthiness of Jesus and his disciples. If I have to place my life in anybody's hands, it would be his.

How am I not far from God?! If I were close, then I wouldn't be asking all those questions and having all those doubts, would I?!

I'm close to God and I'm asking more questions that many agnostics. I wouldn't have taken so much time to investigate every doubt in the finest detail: where it comes from, what my prejudices are, what the sources, the alternatives, the proofs, the theories, the opinions and the evidence was. And God came close to me while I thought I was far, one might say I stumbled upon Him, the rock rejected by the builders. I struggled with God like Jacob did, and He gave me a new name as He gave Jacob. He recognized me even before I even knew who I was.

If He wasn't looking for me, I would never have found Him.

If the God of the Bible and of Christ is everywhere -- why don't I see Him? What a rebellious self-blinded monster I must be!

You are standing in someone else's shoes, accusing yourself. Have you ever wondered in whose shoes you have to be standing to be able to say that? Do you want to be in their shoes, when God comes to judge them as they judged you?

I can read. But like I said above, it must be that I am some horrible, filthy, hideous monster for not seeing this loving God of the Bible and of Christ.

And like I said above: through whose eyes are you looking? Through God's? I can tell you He certainly doesn't see a horrible, filthy hideous monster. Neither do I - I could never see it or believe it.

Have you ever tried to face those accusations by standing in your own shoes, being exactly who you are? Let your accuser speak for himself, and let God speak for himself.

Jesus himself repeated David's words: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?" And God loved them.

I am perfectly harmless.

That's a relief!

What he *says* is one thing; what he truly *believes* may be something else.

That's to his own detriment - people are judged by their words.

For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matt. 12)​

"A particularly hardened criminal's mind"? Then I have "a particularly hardened criminal's mind" as well.
This trial isn't about truth, justice, honour, guilt. It is about who wins. And in this game, the principle of choosing the lesser evil over a greater one is applied, by Milosevic -- or so it seems.
No court is interested in truth, only in justice -- or what seems to be justice.

Then such a court is corrupt. "Justice" is a farce without truth. If it is just a game, a joke, then it is a dangerous one. I do not play it, and neither does God.

Surely, I can understand how *you* believe in those things.

Then you have something to agree or disagree with. I take it you disagree.

 

[water]

This amounts to the argument
"I will not believe or do anything anyone says, for I might be fooled."

No it doesn't.

What it amounts to, is that if you don't know something, are in reality actually ignorant concerning it, then there is no value in just bowing down and worshipping it. The methods to be applied would be to find out about that something, and then - if all is good or to your liking, then bow down to it. It's about having knowledge of something before putting all your eggs in the one basket- because needless to say, you might be fooled.

You can say such things only because you give believers no credit that they may know something that you don't know.

Well, defeatist attitudes are quite common. I wonder why there's a need for it. Is it really too much hassle and effort just to find out the reality of the issue and thus have no need for complete guesswork?

Same goes for you.

Perhaps so, but the 'what happens' is clearly because of jesus. According to him, that's what he came here to ensure. To make certain that people would go against each other.

This is skewed, it focuses only on the negative.

Again, did the devil ever threaten to make sure that people were set to go against each other?

Are you proposing that the devil is morally superior to Jesus?

See, there's the problem - and the reason you should read the first paragraph. People claim they know certain things about god because of what is said in the bible,

Wrong. One doesn't believe in God because the Bible says so. One believes the Bible because the Bible speaks about God.

and yet that very same book shows him to be the biggest single murderer in the history of mankind, prone to outbursts of wrath and anger at any given moment even upon the innocent, (Abimelech for one). By that alone, people should apply some caution and learn more concerning it.

If you think that you own your life, then you will surely see God as your enemy, set out to harm you.
You did not give yourself your life, it was not your decision to be born. You don't own your life.

Not to mention, without having read every single religious text in history, you could make no valid claims concerning the identity/identities of the supposed god/s. No religious man has ever established any validity as to why the god they worship is any more real than any of the other thousands of gods. Once again, it shows beyond any reasonable doubt that humanity knows nothing about what kind of being/s god/s are, and as such worshipping unquestionably is simple foolishness.

I'll quote you something from another thread:

To believe something depends on the information that we get, and once there is sufficient information, we automatically believe (unless we have some ulterior motives or a mental illness). If enough information is presented, we cannot but believe.

This is true, and it would have been a trustworthy saying if we were still children who believed things as they presented themselves to us. Not quite indiscriminately, but certainly more readily. No child ever said: I would have believed if I could, but I can't. If there is something to believe, he'll simply believe.

But we have since been disillusioned, deceived, disappointed, and we don't believe automatically even when it feels as if we could have - when we have sufficient information, we doubt that it is sufficient; when we have enough, we expect more. We aren't satisfied with searching, we want to find; we aren't satisfied to find, we want to know; we aren't satisfied with knowing, we want to understand; we aren't satisfied with understanding, we want "evidence" - and the circle starts again.

Your problem is that of the general nature of human knowledge, not of religious knowledge in specific.

No, I don't agree, and don't force your interpretation on me.

Scroll back. I didn't force anything upon you. I asked you if you would agree that it would be better to have never known jesus. You said: "yes".

Fine, say you were mistaken and you actually meant no, but don't accuse me of forcing anything upon you. I did not make you say yes.

I said:

As for those who have never heard of God and His law: God is omnipresent and omniscient, so He knows who has heard the Gospel and who hasn't.

What does that have to do with them? Are you saying that the best plan is to never have heard of jesus and then you're automatically saved? In that case is it worth christians going round spreading the word?

Yes, the argument that "the best plan is to never have heard of Jesus and then you're automatically saved". But a person cannot really plan to never hear of the Gospel.

Whether it is worth that Christians go around spreading the word: They are people, and they have their ethical system, just like anyone else. They do what they see fit.

As I see it, the only problem with "spreading the Word" is that people act as if they have the upper hand over God's law. It is when people say "You must hear of the Gospel or you will be doomed, and this is why I am telling you about it" that they are trying to take God's law and God's justice into their own hands.
A person who says "You must hear of the Gospel or you will be doomed, and this is why I am telling you about it" is actually thereby declaring that he is your way to salvation, that your salvation depends on this person -- and not on God.

The "yes" is as in 'yes, I know this argument' --
I've seen it several times before.

But I have not agreed with it.

Unless you're worshipping the wrong one heh?

How could that be?
I believe that God makes sure that people who truly seek Him also find Him -- He comes to meet them.

However, I fail to see how following the rule of 'love thy neighbour' instead of trampling all over them is a survival issue.

Cooperation leads to better survival results.

I have yet to meet a christian that loves anyone, let alone their neighbour.

This only says something about the environment you live in, not about Christianity as such.
Don't judge a religion solely by its members.

To love does not mean to sit back and watch, and whatever happens, happens.

Well, the bible would state that it's not about works, but just faith. As a result, one of the bible precepts that you tell me christians supposedly live by, would be that it is simply a matter of sit back and watch - as long as you love god and have faith. Works are irrelevant.

You need to read the Bible.

James 2:

Faith and Deeds

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?

17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]?
21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God's friend.

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. ​

Again, if God should be as you say, then the worse for Him.

I'm sorry I don't follow. How is it 'the worse for him'?

If God should turn out to be a liar, while He was claiming He is just -- then this is the worse for Him.
It is the liar who is the bad one, not the one who has been lied to.

If I was a believer, then surely I would think god killed him, or even 'know' that god killed him.

That is, if you would believe in a malignant god who is out to harm you, if you would believe in a god who is your enemy.

Next time you get into an elevator, insist that faith is for idiots. See if you will let the door close.

Sorry, I don't see what you're trying to get at.

When you get into an elevator, you have faith that the ropes holding it will carry the weight and not break.
You don't know for sure until you get out of the elevator whether the ropes held or not. Elevators are not 100% safe.

The God of the Bible is just and loving.

Oh.. Where?

You have to be prepared to see it.
Bark, and you will get barked at in return.

Of course you might not particularly care about animals so let's use a more apt example: Let's say you have a son. He isn't a very nice person, he set house on fire, killed the neighbours dog, crashed your car and so on. Would you drown your son? Or, more to the point, would you stone your son to death? Is that, in your opinion, how to be loving and just?

As a mother, I would not own my son's life. But God owns people's lives. God's justice is executed differently than man's justice.

You are aware that not only has god done this time and time again, but that he also commanded that you do stone your son to death if he's bad. Is this loving? Is god telling you to be loving?

Im sorry but if you think this shows 'loving', then you have a warped opinion.

It's only "warped" to you because you are on a slippery slope and in a hasty generalization, focusing only on some details.

Sin must be punished, such is the law. If it isn't punished, one of the consequences is that people will keep on transgressing, inflicting harm on other people.

To love does not mean that you simply let everyone do whatever they do, and just forgive them. This isn't love, it's connivance and negligence.

A punishment must be severe enough, or people will not take the law seriously, and chaos will rule.

Ah, your chronological snobbery again.

Instead of being pedantic, how about you just answer the question?

I think the knowledge the peoples of old had is of no less value or veracity than the one we have today.
We might not be able to use their knowledge in our present environment, just as they would not be able to use our knowledge in their environment. This doesn't make either of us superior or inferior to the other.

Because they acknowledged His authority. We do it rarely.

Bizarre notion. How many millions of god followers are there? Would it not be realistic to state that there are more god followers now than there were people back then? Your "we do it rarely" is utter garbage and you know it.

To acknowledge God's authority takes more than to just be on the list of the members of a church.

What's with the 'we'? There are millions upon millions of people that do acknowledge his authority. Sure, there are also people that don't, but the same was true in the olden days, but god gave them plagues, sulphur bombed them, drowned them etc. Well? Where is he now?

Do you want God to show Himself?
Even an omnipotent God cannot give what you refuse to accept.

If you would judge my actions towards my cat only after what I have done in the presence of dogs and other people, then, oh then I am a mightily mean person.

What are you getting at? It's a strange statement considering that is exactly what you're doing.

What about accounting for the way I was when with my cat alone?

You're taking 5 mentions of love, ignoring the hundreds of times he mentions anything negative, and calling him a just and loving being.

Whether someone is just, loving, good, caring is not determined statistically by the ratio between his "good and bad deeds".
You have to get to know the person -- and this is possible only in a relationship.

Seemingly you haven't even checked just to make sure he's loving, but claim him so anyway with all the contrary text hidden away safely from your eyes. You take the handful of times he mentions love to specific people, change it to mean everyone and anyone, and then talk to me like I have done something wrong for pointing out the opposing text?

Not at all. Read my response to the previous paragraph.

Yes -- love to "specific people" -- in individual relationships.

So.. a being that annihilates mankind on a regular basis is in your eyes just and loving, whereas a being that doesn't say anything just doesn't care? What a perverse notion.

Your black-and-white skewing is perverse.

In other words, you have set out with the premise "God is evil until proven otherwise".

Humans take so many things for granted. It is a shame.

Such as?

For starters, their own life. The planet.
Then look at the Declaration of human rights. Who provides those rights? Who ensures them? Who sanctions them, and how strictly?
They are written there, but this alone does not mean that they will be respected, neither that their transgressions will be sanctioned.

Free will meets free will. It is usually a fight.

It is a fight because jesus came to ensure it would be, and prior to that god intervened to ensure it was harder for man to get along.

... God is evil until proven otherwise, right?

Ah, a quick fix excuse to justify god intervening with those you claim have free will and who were getting along and working together. And worst of all is you just made it up off the top of your head. god came down because he was worried that "nothing would be impossible for them". He didn't say: "shit, they've all become vain, even though they also get along, let us go down and teach them how not to be vain by making sure they don't get along, but actually use their free will to not have a lovey dovey life".

He purposely made it harder for mankind to progress and get along because he was worried that they could do anything.

So now technology is moving along at incredible rate, will he worry some more and cause us to nuke each other?

The nukes are our Babel. We will destroy eachother.

... proverbially, it is just the soul Satan demands ...

Just out of interest, could you please point out exactly where the devil says he wants or demands souls?

I said proverbially, it is just the soul Satan demands ...
Otherwise it is about which god does one *serve* -- the false one(s), or God.

 

[§outh§tar]

You need to read the Bible.

Someone hasn't been brushing up on Pauline doctrine.

Wrong. One doesn't believe in God because the Bible says so. One believes the Bible because the Bible speaks about God.

Remember the circle I drew?

 

[water]

Someone hasn't been brushing up on Pauline doctrine.

I don't have to.

Remember the circle I drew?

I think you need to learn more about self-referentiality, and apparent self-referentiality.

 

[SnakeLord]

You can say such things only because you give believers no credit that they may know something that you don't know.

Like what? Tell me.. what do they "know"? Take into account that I speak to people on a regular basis that "know" all sorts of things. The things that they "know" are not in fact real or true, but these people "know" it is. As an example I could mention a man who "knows" he's white and related to the queen. He is in actuality black/coloured, (whatever term is preferred), and from what I can gather not related to the queen at all. However, he "knows" he's white.

If people seek something so bad, it can, (and will), become a reality for them. We have seen sciforums users who see demons on a daily basis, who "know" the world is full of satanists and cannibals - and all kinds of bizarre and strange things. But, (and it's a big but): When it comes down to facts, when it comes down to presentable reality - not one person has ever managed to establish a basis of truth - here or anywhere.

These people do not "know", they "believe" - and to such an extent whereby that belief overtakes them.

In thousands of years nobody has managed to provide even the very basics of evidence pertaining to the existence of a godly entity. Instead, in the year 2005 - a time of technology and understanding, people rely on the word of ancient shepherds and claim they "know" because of it. It's perverse. And these same people will happily fart around the bush avoiding the simple reality of it - that these things demand evidence, demand proof.

So all the religious denominations sit around arguing along the lines of: "Im right", "No, I'm right", "No, I'm right". They crash planes into each others buildings and bomb themselves along with everyone else because they are all so sure that they "know". When it comes down to the crunch, they don't "know" anything. All they would need to do is show some proof and the deaths can stop - but no.. they're all incapable and fall back on the world's daftest premise: "It's about faith". That is the absolute equivalent of: "We don't know, we just want it to be true".

This is skewed, it focuses only on the negative.

Take that up with jesus. But tell me why I can't or shouldn't point that out? I've had an ear busting for decades from people telling me jesus wants love, peace, and harmony - even when jesus' own words are quite the opposite. From a biblical standpoint, the fact is that jesus said he came to set a man against his father, a woman against her mother. This does not imply harmony, love or peace - but indeed a world full of people that can't get along. Given this, peace literally drops dead on the spot.

Of course a religious person wouldn't even mention statements like these - being as bias as they are. I feel it warranted that I point these things out. True, it could very well come across like a counter bias - but then that's how the game works. Someone tries to advertise something by pointing out all the good, someone else points out all the bad that they forgot to mention. An example:

cigarettes are wonderful..
cigarettes are wonderful..
cigarettes are wonderful..
cigarettes are wonderful..
cigarettes are wonderful..

They also give you cancer.

That's how it works. You could say it's being negative, but I find it important to make mention of the realities that many choose to ignore/deny.

Are you proposing that the devil is morally superior to Jesus?

Who's to say? What does anyone really know about this being other than jesus talks down about him and that he gave mankind morals? From a biblical standpoint, the facts are that he gave you and I the ability to discern right from wrong. god denied you that ability which would have meant man could never have made an informed decision about anything. Killing would have been fine - because there would be no moral consequences attached, as would anything man felt like doing - from paedophilia to necrophilia to shoplifting.

Without morals, man would be right down there at the bottom.

Then we must look towards the actions of god. I'd like to quote something that Woody or someone said to me on another thread. That was this:

"the devil is a murderer, he has been since day 1".

What kind of argument is that when we look towards the biblical facts? On the one hand he would use the term murderer as if it's a bad thing - and not to mention that the bible doesn't show the devil killing people.

On the other hand he fully justifies that very same action when it is in the bible to an insane degree. We're talking every single living thing on the planet. We're talking plagues and godly disasters, sulphur bombed cities and closed wombs.

Not just that, we're talking a being that has on several occasions deliberately stood in man's way to stop him from progress. The garden of course where he denied man the ability to have morals and Babel where he split man up.

So how does a person that looks down upon murder, view it as perfectly loving and dandy when that very same action is performed by a different being? Murder is murder - regardless to who commits it.

Of course you could now state that jesus didn't kill people - but healed them. The return to this is depdant upon particular beliefs - but in general most will claim that jesus is god - and as such is in actuality guilty of all those former crimes against humanity. And I'm sorry, but you cannot state that mass murder, (every living thing), is not a crime against humanity.

So with what exactly does one judge whether the devil is evil? Given the current frame of mind, people are willing to take the word of a being that has made it his goal to annihilate mankind. If god turns round and says: "hey, the devil's evil - he kills people", it can't be taken too seriously if you actually look at god's own list of victims. The biblical reality is that god's kill count is far far far in excess of what the devil's could ever hope to be. So what do man have left with which to claim the devil evil? yes, the G of E episode. The typical whinge: "If it wasn't for the serpent and Eve we'd all be in a land of luxury", but if people actually paid attention to it, they'd see the serpent made them into men. You have the ability to comprehend evil simply because the serpent gave you that ability. That is undeniable.

Wrong. One doesn't believe in God because the Bible says so. One believes the Bible because the Bible speaks about God.

That's not exactly what I said, but anyway - I guess it's worth asking with what one has to assign validity to the bible. Let it be known that your arguments for biblical validity would be directly matched by a million people from a million beliefs. Can you even begin to show any validity for the text you might subscribe to vs anyone else and their personal little texts?

Koran/bible/vedas etc? Who's to say? And thus, in line with my quote - people are in no real position to make claims regarding god when nobody can even establish which, if any, of the religious texts have accuracy.

I lay the challenge firmly here right now for anyone to come forward and show that their book, their doctrine is accurate and factual to any degree above Lord of the Rings.

Without being able to do that your quote falls apart. The bible might 'talk about god', but it might be complete and utter garbage.. it might be talking about a completely fictional being not worth the paper it's printed on. If it can't be established as accurate or factual - then it's inherently worthless.

So, the challenge has been made. Will there be any takers?

If you think that you own your life, then you will surely see God as your enemy, set out to harm you.

You're mistaking me for something I am not. I am a happy atheist, nothing more. In honesty, god can harm me about as much as the Martian kangaroo monkey. However, the biblical facts speak for themselves and are undeniable: the biblical god killed every living thing on the planet. This makes him a mass murderer - beyond any level mankind has ever seen. That is an undeniable biblical fact.

You did not give yourself your life, it was not your decision to be born. You don't own your life.

That does not mean that my parents have the right to kill me when I do things they don't personally agree with - and nor would they, (in general). It is a result of having morals.

Your problem is that of the general nature of human knowledge, not of religious knowledge in specific.

No. My "problem" is that life, sanity, and rationality demand it.

"There is a leprechaun in my garden".

"Cool".

Without the burden of providing evidence and facts, nothing is of any worth at all. Every single lunatic on the planet would be making claims that are just accepted as real for the mere sake of it. It's childlike gullibility: "Look! There's a floating mushroom!".. "Shit, where?"

People are fooling themselves if that's how they think life is.

The "yes" is as in 'yes, I know this argument' --
I've seen it several times before.

But I have not agreed with it.

Fair enough, but it did come across as an implication that you agreed. You even gave the 'but' statement: "But a person cannot really plan to never hear of the Gospel", which implied that although it would be the best plan, it isn't quite feasible given that they'll probably hear about it one way or the other.

How could that be?
I believe that God makes sure that people who truly seek Him also find Him -- He comes to meet them.

Sayeth millions of people with millions of different beliefs. I even stated pretty much that back at the beginning of this post. If people want something bad enough - they will get it. Unfortunately that is not a sign or implication of it being real.

This only says something about the environment you live in, not about Christianity as such.
Don't judge a religion solely by its members.

I think it generally speaks for itself:

A) The main character of the belief, (god), has killed more humans than any being in any religion or any mythology ever in history.

B) Humans eventually got their own back in a small way by killing him, (and somehow earning forgiveness via murder)

C) In the future he will come back and kill everyone on the planet again - but this time also destroy the planet.

D) Everyone gets risen up and then the overwhelming majority get to spend eternity burning like beefburgers.

It's one mass 'humans suck and everyone's gonna die at the hand of god" religion. It's so overwhelmingly depressing that I would personally ban it from the bookshelves. All the "I love you's", (of which there are very few), do not hold a candle to all the misery, torture and death. And people think vacuum cleaner salesmen are bad?...

That's quite enough to judge the religion itself, and gives a great insight into the minds of those that follow it blindly.

You need to read the Bible.

I have, thank you for mentioning it though.

17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.... etc etc etc

Romans 4:4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

Ephesians 2:8-10 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

etc etc etc...

If God should turn out to be a liar, while He was claiming He is just -- then this is the worse for Him.

How so?

It is the liar who is the bad one, not the one who has been lied to.

Being "bad" wouldn't make anything any worse for him.

That is, if you would believe in a malignant god who is out to harm you, if you would believe in a god who is your enemy.

All one need do is read. The fact remains that not one being in all the world's religions or mythologies can even come close to the kill count of the biblical god. Are you saying that is the sign of a being that isn't out to harm you?

When you get into an elevator, you have faith that the ropes holding it will carry the weight and not break.

That's news to me. That's like saying every night when you go to bed you have faith that a meteor wont crash land on your head. Quite frankly that's daft. It is when a person tries to make some bizarre little comparison between believing in an invisible and completely non-evidential sky being and getting into a lift, that I seriously start to frown. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm just saying that's what people generally try.

But you're well aware that lifts are not an issue of faith.

You have to be prepared to see it.
Bark, and you will get barked at in return.

Go for it. Of course the same would be true in reverse.. Given that the biblical god has annihilated more humans than any other being in history, would it not be apparent to state I could find a more just and loving god within the pages of a different religious text? But I can see what you're getting at. Saddam was a bastard but you need to be prepared to see the loving and just nature that was in him.

But God owns people's lives.

How do you figure that?

But regardless it still leaves us in the same position: A being that (owns us) and likes to drown us. All of us. Nothing has changed, you're just saying he can be an asshole because he's the boss. Either way he'd still be an asshole.

I hand crafted some toy soldiers. I "own" them, and decided to stamp on them. If those toy soldiers could talk, do you think I could honestly be labelled "loving" towards them? Don't be silly.

It's only "warped" to you because you are on a slippery slope and in a hasty generalization, focusing only on some details.

Yeah I know. You don't want to hear it, you don't want to see it, you don't want to read it. Instead lets just label a massive portion of the bible as "a hasty generalisation" and pretend it isn't there. That's really quite sad - especially that your only real counter argument is that god owns us so has the right to annihilate us - which didn't exactly make him look anymore loving.

But let's clarify this issue: The killing done by god is in the bible or it isn't - including, (but not limited to), the drowning of every living thing on the planet, the closing of innocent womens wombs, the slaughter via plagues and a hundred and one other sickening things of "his" people, the threats of what would happen to those who didn't obey him - ranging from plagues to having you eat your own children, to the eventual outcome where he will let the devil come out and have his fun, and then destroy the planet an all on it - and then send the mass majority of humanity to hell to burn forever and ever and ever amen.

Yes no? You think 5 mentions of love compares to that?

Sin must be punished, such is the law. If it isn't punished, one of the consequences is that people will keep on transgressing, inflicting harm on other people.

Why is that? You were all made as nasty bastards? You really do make humans sound like a bunch of fuckups.... it's really quite perverse.

Some of us just aren't bad, regardless to laws. Oh well.

But you do realise that your statement covers a large area? We're not just talking murder and theft but eating pork and circumcision. god sayeth that it is a sin for you to eat pork, and to work on a weekend. The same principle would apply.. Transgressors of the laws must be punished. An eternity in hell would be a tad extreme for eating a pig, (imo), especially given that I can't personally see the harm you're talking of connected with this breaking of the law. What did you do? Just pick a few out that you agree with and ignore all his other laws that are beyond stupidity?

Ooh, let's not forget god's law to stone your son to death if he's naughty. Now we have a dilemma.. You see.. if you uphold this law you end up inflicting harm on others - which in your opinion is a bad thing, and yet god commands it from you. Well whatever, he's the boss, he can do whatever he wants yada yada yada... but it's not like you take him all that seriously anyway.

To love does not mean that you simply let everyone do whatever they do, and just forgive them. This isn't love, it's connivance and negligence.

Indeed, god says stone them to death - problem solved. Hey, who can argue with god right?

A punishment must be severe enough, or people will not take the law seriously, and chaos will rule.

I'm with you. I just hope for your sons sake that he behaves.

This doesn't make either of us superior or inferior to the other.

Lol. I'm speechless.

To acknowledge God's authority takes more than to just be on the list of the members of a church.

Says who? I bet all of them would argue the case if you stated they didn't.

Do you want God to show Himself?

Yes and no. Yes because it would solve the issue, and no because it would bring widespread panic with everyone now knowing they're going to be annihilated sometime soon.

Even an omnipotent God cannot give what you refuse to accept

That sentence is utter nonsense. "Cannot" is not a feasible word when using "omnipotent". Sorry, try again.

My apologies but I'm knackered. I'll finish it off in the morning.

Ciao.

 

[§outh§tar]

I don't have to.

Romans 4:4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

Ephesians 2:8-10 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

I was only trying to warn you.

I think you need to learn more about self-referentiality, and apparent self-referentiality.

Enlighten me while the mood is pleasant.

 

[water]

SnakeLord,


I won't discuss things with you anymore until you get off of your high throne of endless doubt and distrust.
You are only interested in your view, and you have determined in advance that nothing can change it.

Even an omnipotent God cannot give what you refuse to accept

That sentence is utter nonsense. "Cannot" is not a feasible word when using "omnipotent". Sorry, try again.

God gave you free will, and He will not interfere with it, unless you ask so, or unless He deems it necessary to do so.
Omnipotent does not mean all-controlling or all-willing.
Once you understand this, the rest will make sense too.

* * *

“ Romans 4:4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works"

Ephesians 2:8-10 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."

Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." ”

I was only trying to warn you.

We've had this discussion -- how many times?
You are being stubborn now, this stubborness coming from your fear.

I think you need to learn more about self-referentiality, and apparent self-referentiality.

Enlighten me while the mood is pleasant.

I have a little book wherein I write my beliefs. I go over them, see if they are consistent, and strike out those that don't make sense, add new ones, amend old ones.

One of the beliefs is "When in doubt, look into this book". This qualifies for circularity and self-referentiality, one might think. It would, if the book would be finished, all written, and nothing more to strike out, add or amend.

But as long as this book is in the making, "When in doubt, look into this book" is a methodical reference, it is not of the same kind as other beliefs in the book. Other beliefs in the book may be changed over time, scratched out or new added or amended.

AS LONG AS THE BOOK IS IN THE MAKING, "When in doubt, look into this book" stands as a LIVE YOUR FAITH. Even though placed in the book, among other beliefs, this one is such that it organizes them all, but by a suprasystemic principle that is above mere self-referentiality and circularity.

If the book would contain a belief like "Whatever is written in here is true", then this would be self-referentiality, and it would imply that the book is unchangeable over time.

Note: My book is not like the Bible. My book is the "objectification of my faith", and my faith is a living one, in the making.

What leads me to hold the belief "When in doubt, look into this book" -- while knowing that the book is changeable? A faith that is obviously more than the book itself could ever say.

Faith would be circular and self-referential if it would be static and unchageable. As long as it is a living faith, it only appears to be circular and self-referential -- but it only functions by these principles. If contents change -- and they do --, then we can't speak of circularity and self-referentiality.

 

[SnakeLord]

Part II

Whether someone is just, loving, good, caring is not determined statistically by the ratio between his "good and bad deeds".
You have to get to know the person -- and this is possible only in a relationship.

This being the case, have you tried to have a relationship with satan?

Remember, in your own words, you cannot determine whether a being is loving, caring, just and so on by it's good/bad deeds. This being the case, what would anyone have with which to judge satan as being evil? Why do I sense some extreme hypocricy about to arrive?

Your black-and-white skewing is perverse.

In other words, you have set out with the premise "God is evil until proven otherwise".

What I have done is pointed out the biblibal facts that you seem determined to ignore. You cannot argue them at all so just keep making these daft one line nonsense statements as the quick way out.

But then this is how things are. In general "satan is evil until proven otherwise", and he's done far less than god has done. Now according to you one needs to get into a relationship with the being before being able to make a determination of this manner - which would leave anyone other than satan worshippers unable to comment on whether he is good or bad. Now, if a satan worshipper says the devil is just, loving, good and caring would you then say: "Ok, yes he is", while happily ignoring any mentions of soul stealing and whatever else you can think of? Of course not - and yet that's exactly what you expect from me. That's perverse.

... God is evil until proven otherwise, right?

Do note that that's your statement, I'm just pointing out the biblical facts. jesus says it in the bible. You have no counter argument to that and so once again we see these worthless little one liners of yours.

I said proverbially, it is just the soul Satan demands ...

I know what you said, and I said: "'just out of interest'.. can you point out anywhere where the devil demands souls"? I was just interested to see. Don't need to take it too seriously.

Otherwise it is about which god does one *serve* -- the false one(s), or God.

And who here could make the determination over which god/s, if any, are real/false?

-----------

Part III

I won't discuss things with you anymore until you get off of your high throne of endless doubt and distrust.
You are only interested in your view, and you have determined in advance that nothing can change it.

That's rude. Listen, the idea is to incite intelligent debate and reason. If you're expecting me to instantly become a god-lover, you're being silly. As a result I will tend to argue from my standpoint, (much that you would in a courtroom). Currently I have managed to provide absolute biblical facts - such as jesus statements of his reason for coming and questioned you about it. What have you managed in return? To give me some stupid one line "bad until proven innocent right?" and that's it.

I do fully understand that you cannot take up my challenge without falling flat - so for that reason I understand the swift attempt at escape, but with regards to everything else, doing so is just weak. I'm waiting for you to provide something substantial with which to debunk those biblical facts. Your only seeming return to that is that I should just ignore them and pretend they're not there.

God gave you free will, and He will not interfere with it, unless you ask so, or unless He deems it necessary to do so.
Omnipotent does not mean all-controlling or all-willing.
Once you understand this, the rest will make sense too.

I didn't imply that omnipotent did mean all controlling. What I said was that you can't use the word "cannot" in conjunction with the word "omnipotent". You still can't. Once you understand what I said, we wont have a problem. But let me make it clear that god doesn't need to provide any proof to me, (being non existant he can't), but a human does not have that luxury if he expects to be seen as credible. My concerns in this debate have generally been focused upon the masses of man-murder seen in the bible - and all performed by this supposed being. I ask for some sensible counter argument to that to show how he is in any way just or loving, but you just can't seem to manage it.

You are being stubborn now, this stubborness coming from your fear.

Now you're just being plain silly. You state that it's one way, I show you that the bible clearly suffers from extreme contradiction and point out statements that show the opposite of what you state, and you think this is reason to bring up garbage about fear and stubbornness? What a ridiculous notion, and one that shows that I apparently have to agree with you - even though some parts of the bible don't even agree with you, (which is the point).

You say it's one way and point out biblical quotes. I show you that the bible also states the direct opposite and you blither on about fear? Daft.

Anyway, go scurry off to your little safety shelter where you don't have to get caught up in issues you can't successfully debate. But do note that if you should return, the challenge still stands.

 

[Silvertusk]

Silvertusk

Jesus died alone. He did not take a few hundred people with him.

The point is that he is of the same mindset as those who do achieve martyrdom for their religion.

The only real difference is that dynamite was not invented yet.

Um...ok. I think you are missing the point here. A suicidal bomber has full intention of talking a lot of people with him/her when he/she dies. Jesus had no intention of killing anyone else. It is a different mind set.

 

[Silvertusk]

Ok then, so we're all saved. You, me, atheists, satanists, hindus, muslims and paedophiles. Thanks jesus. That it?

If you want to be then yes.

Figures. It was because you said: "they all follow the same god", which whether you acknowledge it or not, is complete nonsense.



Sure, but that doesn't mean you can answer the same for every human in mankinds history. You follow one specific god, not all of them did. You claimed that they did. You're wrong.



That's ridiculous. You could say: "the ancient Sumerians believed in Tiamat and Marduk", without being non-true to your beliefs. They did believe in Marduk and Tiamat, they did worship them. That's the way it is, and has nothing to do with your beliefs.

You misunderstand me. I can only argue here from a Christian viewpoint here. So if you want to talk about other "gods" then you need to talk to other people.

Well then don't make false claims.

I didn't.

I love it when you people say this. It leads to the question that never gets answered:

What evidence?

Right - My knowledge of the Anthropic Principal, Intelligent Design, Books read, e.g. Case for Christ, Case for a Creator, Who moved the Stone, Whats so amazing about grace, Scientific Journals on Origins of the universe etc etc etc.. All of which lead me to a conclusion I currently support. But then this is all subjective interpretations on the things I have read - likewise with yourself.

Just as a small point: Hitler was known to be very polite to his friends, Saddam Hussein did some really nice things, satan is known for his acts of kindness - giving people whatever they ask for.

Do acts of kindness/goodness mean a being is no longer a psychopath for annihilating every single human on the planet? You consider Hitler evil and yet he didn't even manage to kill one billionth the amount of people god killed. So you define someone being good as using the word love sometime after killing everyone?

Bizarre.

God created us. We sinned against him. He started again. He certainly had the right to do so. After all he created everything. It is like writing a story, and you look over it and see that it is crap so you screw up the paper and start again.

You seem to be making a very loud statement here, along the lines of: "nobody knows". This equates to: Any details concerning heaven are purely make believe.

Interesting how you got to that conclusion. I am merely pointing the fact that it hasn't been made clear what heaven is really suppose to be like. If we are to have eternal life and it turns out to be boring then it is hardly, by definition, likely to be heaven is it? So it must be something so amazing that eternal life in this place seems like bliss. It is impossible for us to imagine what that might be like so I said, quite accurately "Nobody knows?"

Sure, and there are many examples of psychosis throughout the bible. You seem unwilling to state that god was a psychopath so why would I be any more willing to say he was graceful?

Being a psychopath implies cold blooded. I don't think these "murders" were cold blooded. But I do not think we are going to agree on this one.

Strange, because in human terms such a thing would bring about a legal case. Most humans would obviously disagree with you that that's a good thing.

This is the problem with Grace from God that a lot of people do not understand. It is incredibly unfair. But that is the whole point of it. Gods grace is so amazing that even people that from our perspective do not deserve it receive it nonetheless. That is the length that Gods love will stretch for us. This is an area a lot of people have problems with, granted.

 

[(Q)]

It is a different mind set.

Dying for ones religion is the same mindset, regardless of who you take with you.

 

[SnakeLord]

If you want to be then yes.

Well there you go then. End of story. Why are you here? We're all saved.. we're all going off to a new planet with all the same people - it will just be cleaner and calmer. Makes me wonder why he didn't just do that to begin with and save all the fart arsing around.

You misunderstand me. I can only argue here from a Christian viewpoint here. So if you want to talk about other "gods" then you need to talk to other people.

I didn't ask you to argue from anyone elses viewpoints. You said they all worship the same being, I pointed out the error in saying such a thing - because they didn't all worship the same being. End of case.

I didn't.

Yes you did. You said they all worshipped the same being. The fact is that they didn't.

Right - My knowledge of the Anthropic Principal, Intelligent Design, Books read, e.g. Case for Christ, Case for a Creator, Who moved the Stone, Whats so amazing about grace, Scientific Journals on Origins of the universe etc etc etc.. All of which lead me to a conclusion I currently support. But then this is all subjective interpretations on the things I have read - likewise with yourself.

Out of curiosity - have you read any books that state the opposite, (and also provide back up data and evidence)?

If not: you cannot reasonably 'take a side' when that's the only side you've heard. It certainly comes across that way. For instance: You didn't list a book promoting natural evolution and then state that you found it's evidence insufficient, but merely displayed a list of pro-your belief and said it was good enough.

Might I ask if you had the beliefs before reading these books and simply sought something to try and back them up with or whether you didn't have the beliefs, read these books and then decided it was right?

God created us. We sinned against him. He started again. He certainly had the right to do so. After all he created everything. It is like writing a story, and you look over it and see that it is crap so you screw up the paper and start again.

Don't use worthless analogies please. You cannot make a comparison between life and a piece of paper. How about you use children as an example? You have a son who sins against you. Is it ok to kill him, (via drowning/plagues), because he's a bad child?

If we are to have eternal life and it turns out to be boring then it is hardly, by definition, likely to be heaven is it?

A very odd question to ask considering on the line before that you said: "I am merely pointing the fact that it hasn't been made clear what heaven is really suppose to be like." So the "fact" that it's not clear would mean your statement above is moot.

So it must be something so amazing that eternal life in this place seems like bliss.

Why must it? Just 10 seconds ago you were stating it's a fact that it's not clear what heaven is or isn't. As a result your statement has no conceivable merit.

It is impossible for us to imagine what that might be like so I said, quite accurately "Nobody knows?"

Again I can only point out the serious error with what you're saying. Here you say it's impossible for us to imagine when just half a second ago you said: "It must be something so amazing". Those sentences are not compatible with each other.

Being a psychopath implies cold blooded. I don't think these "murders" were cold blooded.

Someone killing their children is never anything but cold blooded. I guess you don't personally have an issue with a parent slaughtering their children as long as those children are naughty.

But that is the whole point of it. Gods grace is so amazing that even people that from our perspective do not deserve it receive it nonetheless.

Where is this amazing grace? Show some worthwhile examples please.

 

[battig1370]

mario: > "Jesus was supposed to have died for our sins. So why repent?"

Good question! Saul/St.Paul's doctrine says that Jesus died for our sins, but Jesus suffered and died because of the wicked in the world. Jesus suffered and died because of the Words He has spoken, and for those that know His Words to be true have no excuse for their sin. Repentence comes when a person finds out that His Words are true and will no longer in his/her's sin.

( Repent: > feel deep sorrow about one's action and no longer continue in that action. )

"You are already clean because of the Word which I have spoken to you. --- If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin." - (John 15:1-22)

Peace be with you, Paul

 

[Silvertusk]

Well there you go then. End of story. Why are you here? We're all saved.. we're all going off to a new planet with all the same people - it will just be cleaner and calmer. Makes me wonder why he didn't just do that to begin with and save all the fart arsing around.

You would think you would be pleased about that. But seriously unless you have accepted his salvation then it won't apply.

I didn't ask you to argue from anyone elses viewpoints. You said they all worship the same being, I pointed out the error in saying such a thing - because they didn't all worship the same being. End of case.



Yes you did. You said they all worshipped the same being. The fact is that they didn't.

I think I know where the misunderstanding is now. I was talking about people who believed in God before Jesus time, they believed in the same God as Christians do now - that is what I am talking about. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Out of curiosity - have you read any books that state the opposite, (and also provide back up data and evidence)?

If not: you cannot reasonably 'take a side' when that's the only side you've heard. It certainly comes across that way. For instance: You didn't list a book promoting natural evolution and then state that you found it's evidence insufficient, but merely displayed a list of pro-your belief and said it was good enough.

Might I ask if you had the beliefs before reading these books and simply sought something to try and back them up with or whether you didn't have the beliefs, read these books and then decided it was right?

Yes, mainly books on the origins of the universe though. From big bang theory, to cosmic string theory, to ideas of parallel universes. Basically some awe inspiring stuff. Blows my mind basically. Makes me appreciated in one respect how small we are but in another how important we are in respect to how we got here. It is incredible to think that right at the beginning this universe might not even have come about at all, but could have easily have collapsed in on itself at the point of expansion. I know it is a romantic ideal but it just almost seems planned, as it was meant to be and with such cosmic beauty as well.

Evolution I am happy with as a theory. But am open to other possibilities on that one as well. Haven't really closed the book on that for myself yet. Although it does piss me off when people state that it is scientific fact. This is incorrect. It is a theory with evidence, just as other theory's have evidence to support them. Darwin himself was embarrased about some of the gaps in his tree of life. Like I said, as a theory I am happy with its possibility. So with regards to the evolution side of things - mainly just biological books at school. And the multitude of Wildlife programs on the TV.

Don't use worthless analogies please. You cannot make a comparison between life and a piece of paper. How about you use children as an example? You have a son who sins against you. Is it ok to kill him, (via drowning/plagues), because he's a bad child?

It might have been a bad analogy but I was simply trying to put in some form of perspective. Read the book of Job to see what I mean. I never said I was happy with the whole idea, in fact it still confuses the hell out of me. But we are talking about a scale here that is beyond our thinking (convenient arguement I know ). We do not know what the "reasons" where for the actions of God and it certainly hurts trying to think about it. I am still searching for answers myself. But one thing I am sure of - If this religion was 100% all rainbows and roses it would certainly be a lot less believable, almost too good to be true if you where.

A very odd question to ask considering on the line before that you said: "I am merely pointing the fact that it hasn't been made clear what heaven is really suppose to be like." So the "fact" that it's not clear would mean your statement above is moot.

Why must it? Just 10 seconds ago you were stating it's a fact that it's not clear what heaven is or isn't. As a result your statement has no conceivable merit.

Again I can only point out the serious error with what you're saying. Here you say it's impossible for us to imagine when just half a second ago you said: "It must be something so amazing". Those sentences are not compatible with each other.

I don't really see your point here. I agree with you on the fact that it is not clear what heaven is really like. But I am allowed to take a guess aren't I? And that guess is that it must be pretty amazing for us not to get bored there. What have I done wrong here?

Someone killing their children is never anything but cold blooded. I guess you don't personally have an issue with a parent slaughtering their children as long as those children are naughty.

Don't be daft. Read what I have written above.

Where is this amazing grace? Show some worthwhile examples please.

Well, I think the first problem is whether you think they are worthwhile or not. But here goes....

Biblical - Jesus forgiving the Romans from the cross.
Jesus himself dying for us paying the price for all our sins when we don't deserve it.

Jesus's parables about the Prodigical son and the Master and the workers and about how you should treat your enemy's. In fact all of the Sermon on the mount.

Jesus healing any one who asked, regardless or race or state, including the Lepers. Because of his example, Christians like Dr Paul Brand has done some revolutionary work with Lepers in India, when no other people will come near them. Again I am not saying that you have to be Christian to do this, but he seemed to be inspired or motivated by his religion.

God's grace to Israel in the OT after they forsake him time and time again. More than a dozen times he helped them out after they rejected him.

The grace of forgiveness is also a powerful act as well. Granted this is not just restricted to Christians but to all mankind, but it is certainly supported by the teachings of the bible. This one case I have read about a mother who was abused as a child and because she didn't forgive, the cycle continued down to her children and they suffered. And so did the mother - she was still in pain. Yet the sister of this mother who was also abused forgave the father and became free of the pain she was carrying with her and so broke the cycle. Even the father benefited and started his journey to redemption. This is taught in the bible in the sermon and the Lords prayer itself. Hate the sin but love the sinner - surely this is grace?

There are many more examples in the bible, and also in the works of people who try to follow the bible's teaching. AA for instance was set up by a couple of Christians along time ago. Here grace has worked wonders.

 

[SnakeLord]

You would think you would be pleased about that. But seriously unless you have accepted his salvation then it won't apply.

Well personally I have no desire to live forever. Your second statement also, once again, brings us to the reality that anyone born before the life of jesus is in serious trouble.

I think I know where the misunderstanding is now. I was talking about people who believed in God before Jesus time, they believed in the same God as Christians do now - that is what I am talking about. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

You're doing it again. You can say that the christians believe in the same god as the jews, but you cannot talk for everyone who believed in a god. Your statement would include people who clearly did not believe in the same god - such as Hindus, ancient Greeks and so on.

Evolution I am happy with as a theory. But am open to other possibilities on that one as well. Haven't really closed the book on that for myself yet. Although it does piss me off when people state that it is scientific fact.

Wakey wakey.. Evolution is a fact. You clearly haven't read up on it, or have read the wrong books concerning it. However, just to give you the opportunity, please explain what you think evolution is.

This is incorrect.

Ok, kindly provide details regarding this.

It might have been a bad analogy but I was simply trying to put in some form of perspective.

And wouldn't it have been more pertinent to use murder of a son as an analogy considering that's exactly what it comes down to? I notice religious people generally do that - using the most worthless analogy imaginable that has absolutely no merit to the issue.

But we are talking about a scale here that is beyond our thinking (convenient arguement I know ). We do not know what the "reasons" where for the actions of God and it certainly hurts trying to think about it.

What do you mean? Most of those "reasons" are stated in the bible. For instance: In the desert the jews are whining because they're forced to live on manna. Even Moses goes up to god and says that everyone is stuck on flakes of manna while god gets all the meat sacrificed to him. He asks if the people can have some meat. god says ok and provides them with shitloads of quail. But of course he had a plan up his sleeve. It becomes quite clear god does not like someone voicing his concerns - and so just as they begin to bite down on the quail, god kills them all. If you spend some time reading that, you'll see quite clearly as to his motivation, and how seriously evil it is. You might have heard the saying that when you're in need god carries you. To stay true to the biblical text, it would read: when you're in need god annihilates you.

Sure, these people complained.. but that is what man does and any "graceful", "loving" and "caring" individual wouldn't deal with it in such a seriously evil manner. If my daughter was to nag that she wanted something else to eat and I killed her, nobody would consider me caring, loving or graceful. They would call me absolute evil. The same applies to any being you can think of - and if you claim otherwise you're not being honest to yourself.

It's also worth pointing out that the entire "beyond our thinking" is top notch hypocricy. Religious people instantly assign human values such as "loving", "caring", and "graceful", but then instantly dismiss any human assigned value of "evil" or "nasty". You simply cannot state it is beyond our comprehension with regards to one human assigned value and then allow every other human assigned value to stand.

So.. take the human assigned values of love, care and grace and then figure out whether mass annihilation, plagues, turning people into pillars of salt, closing wombs, and so on fits anywhere in there. The fact of the matter is that they don't, so from human assigned values you cannot in honesty conclude that this being is loving, caring or graceful.

But one thing I am sure of - If this religion was 100% all rainbows and roses it would certainly be a lot less believable, almost too good to be true if you where.

What are you saying? That god needs to annihilate mankind just to make the religion more realistic to you? That any real god must by default exterminate it's creation whenever it sees fit?

I don't really see your point here. I agree with you on the fact that it is not clear what heaven is really like. But I am allowed to take a guess aren't I?

You're allowed - as I am allowed to point out that the guess you make has absolutely no merit.

Don't be daft. Read what I have written above.

Daft? Sorry, what was daft exactly? Oh right, you think you can assign a human value such as love to a being, but if I assign a different human value it can't be done because that being is unknowable?

You've tried a couple of tactics.. firstly using an author throwing away paper as an example, and then stating I can't apply a value because god is beyond our thinking.. all the while trying to justify assigning a value of love/grace and whatever to that very same being that you tell me is beyond our thinking. The first analogy shows more than anything how worthless we would be to god. Do you, if you write, have any feelings whatsoever for the paper you throw in the bin? Of course not, it's just paper. So in reality it's kind of going against you.. Paper is meaningless - thus irrelevant unless you were to state humans are meaningless to god, and by using the analogy of a man killing his child you would have to assign the value of evil - or most certainly debate against the values of 'loving', 'caring' or 'graceful'.

Biblical - Jesus forgiving the Romans from the cross.

Sure, that shows that he is willing to forgive those who are going to kill him. Of course, as god he would understand that it was a necessity - he had to die - otherwise christianity wouldn't exist and nobody would be 'saved'. The question is, did he forgive the jews, (his people)? The christian stance is that jews are destined for hell - so it would certainly come across that he isn't as forgiving as you'd like to make out. The Romans did their job, the jews conspired. Big difference.

Jesus himself dying for us paying the price for all our sins when we don't deserve it.

Has he really? Don't all sinners go to hell unless they start worshipping this being? That's not a selfless act, but a selfish one. I know of no human that asked to be created as a sinner - and yet it is obviously an integral part of humanity. We could just as easily have been created as beings that couldn't sin - and I see no justifiable reason as to why we would need to sin - just put us all in heaven and done with it. People will often say, "but he needs to test us", but that's without worth considering he will already know all the answers to all the tests he could ever do. Just put all you righteous folk in heaven while wthe rest of us simply don't exist, (or with all the godly love in the world get burned for eternity), and done with it.

Jesus's parables about the Prodigical son and the Master and the workers and about how you should treat your enemy's. In fact all of the Sermon on the mount.

Giving advice is one thing. We can all do it. In fact I know a guy convicted of first degree murder who gives good advice. That doesn't make him a nice guy.

Jesus healing any one who asked, regardless or race or state, including the Lepers.

In the OT, god, (who is jesus according to christians), states that he is the one who makes people that way. He makes them crippled, makes them blind, deaf and dumb, makes them the way they are. This is basically showing someone trying to get credit for undoing something that he actually inflicted them with in the first place. It's like a doctor giving you bronchitis, curing it and then expecting your thanks. The worst thing is jesus tries to pass the buck - claiming the devil is responsible, when in the OT god, (who is jesus apparently), states the exact opposite.

Again I am not saying that you have to be Christian to do this, but he seemed to be inspired or motivated by his religion.

But there is selfishness in that act. A religious man helping another generally has a selfish purpose, (i.e get on god's good side and get saved), whereas a non-religious man doing the very same thing has absolutely nothing to gain.

God's grace to Israel in the OT after they forsake him time and time again. More than a dozen times he helped them out after they rejected him.

Where?

Hate the sin but love the sinner - surely this is grace?

Not specifically. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to understand that people are not generally 'responsible' for their crimes. Yes, they commit them, but one must always look to the underlying causes that made them commit the crime. It's not grace, it's simple understanding. Of course though it's extremely bias. If I came round to your house, raped your entire family and then slaughtered them you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. It's as simple as that. Would that mean you have no grace?

AA for instance was set up by a couple of Christians along time ago.

Do you have data concerning this? I'd be interested to see it.

 

[water]

When examining something, I think you are actually examining your beliefs about something. You are trying to find out what the is to doubt.

...
Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism":

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.​

When examining something, we are actually examining our beliefs about something. We are trying to find out how these beliefs are interconnected, and make a logically consistent system. When trying to find out "what there is to doubt", we are actually trying to identify possible holes in the consistency of the system. To patch them up, we set up a hypothesis, test it on reality, and let reality show us whether it patches up a hole.
Usually, this works thus that by patching up one hole, two new ones are poked ... and so on. For humans, this seems the preferred practice -- in opposition to completely resetting the system.

If you look for doubts, you will certaintly find them - and you don't have to act so surprised about it.

This is not what my problem is about. My problem is that there seems to be no end to doubting, it's endless, infinite.

It is my word against yours then.

So you have decided not to doubt your word, suddenly? Are you saying you don't believe Jesus existed? Is that a claim I hear?

No. I'm saying the available knowledge of the historical situation is such that everything has become moot -- it's equally possible that Jesus existed (and was what he claimed to be), or that he didn't. It seems now that in order to prove his existence, it would take in roundabout the same as to prove some principle in QM. Just like I can't afford a cyclotrone and the rest of the equipment, study and staff, I can't afford to go and study all the books and historic remains.

It is only "against" my word if it is something that you consider worthy of belief, and if you are so convinced of its truth I will certainly investigate it further!

You seem to have a knowledge that I cannot afford to gain for myself. It's not that I oppose you or disagree, but we are on different banks anyway.

How am I not far from God?! If I were close, then I wouldn't be asking all those questions and having all those doubts, would I?!

If He wasn't looking for me, I would never have found Him.

Good for you then.

If the God of the Bible and of Christ is everywhere -- why don't I see Him? What a rebellious self-blinded monster I must be!

You are standing in someone else's shoes, accusing yourself. Have you ever wondered in whose shoes you have to be standing to be able to say that? Do you want to be in their shoes, when God comes to judge them as they judged you?

I am obviously standing in my shoes.

And like I said above: through whose eyes are you looking? Through God's? I can tell you He certainly doesn't see a horrible, filthy hideous monster. Neither do I - I could never see it or believe it.

How would you know what God thinks? You have a special position?
And you have never seen me either.

Surely, I can understand how *you* believe in those things.

Then you have something to agree or disagree with. I take it you disagree.

I simply have no way of having the knowledge you have, that's all.

 

[Jenyar]

No. I'm saying the available knowledge of the historical situation is such that everything has become moot -- it's equally possible that Jesus existed (and was what he claimed to be), or that he didn't. It seems now that in order to prove his existence, it would take in roundabout the same as to prove some principle in QM. Just like I can't afford a cyclotrone and the rest of the equipment, study and staff, I can't afford to go and study all the books and historic remains.

Then you are deferring the matter to other people - and it becomes a question of who you believe. There is no historical evidence against Jesus' existence, so it is not "equally possible". The contention that he did not exist comes from a reinterpretation of what people said about him (so again: a question of who you believe), not from evidence against it.

I simply have no way of having the knowledge you have, that's all.

Do you think I got it from reading expensive books? Unless you are seriously mentally retarded, you have as much capacity for knowledge as anybody here.

 

[Jenyar]

How would you know what God thinks? You have a special position?
And you have never seen me either.

I simply pay attention when He speaks, and He didn't even have to tell it to me personally. There is no appearance, sin, or quality about you that God does not know about, and that He did not know about when He presented you with a new life through Jesus and his prophets. Therefore nothing about you serves as an excuse - they didn't count for you and certainly doesn't count against you.