Smart people don't believe in god...

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I am an empirical rationalist.  I go by what I can see, hear, touch, and so forth.  I know God exists.  I know that Lucifer (Semyaz, Satan, Bob, whatever you want to call him) exists.  I worship neither one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a rationalist, on what evidence do you base the assertion that God and Satan exist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personal experience.

[FaramirK]

Yes one of those quotes I gave was Jesus (full disclosure: I don't think he actually existed)

 

To believe Jesus didn't exist is to reject historical fact. There is abundant evidence to show he did exist. Whether or not you believe he was God is up to you, but for the sake of your argument, I suggest you bite the bullet and admit he was a historical person. Do you believe in Julius Ceaser? How about Alexander the Great? How about Buddha? Sun Tzu? Mohammad?

 

saying that the law never changed.

 

No, he said he "came to fulfill the Law", ie complete it. You can't pick up a bible (or any book for that matter) and find one verse you like and then misquote it.

 

And if something was an abomination to God with the Israelites, how is it suddenly okay for non-Israelites who worship him? If it was an abomination to God then, and isn't now, that's a fickle omnipotent, omniscient deity who can change his mind from one century to the next (who apparently went and created all those abominations in the first place).

 

What "Abominations" are you referring to?

 

Granted he wasn't slaughtering people as gleefully as he was in the OT by the hundreds and thousands by the time he got to the NT, so maybe he took a omnipotent Xanax.

 

Gleefully? Evidence from the text he did it gleefully? What does the text say was the reason he did it? Have you read it?

 

As for loving, gentle, and forgiving, how can adherents be expected to live with those qualities when the god they worship tosses non-believers or unrepentant "sinners" (is adultery, homosexuality, or false witness as bad as murder or rape? into a lake of fire and eternal torment?

 

No sin "harder" to forgive than any other. The NT teaches that Lust=Adultury/rape and Hate=Murder.

 

He doesn't "toss" unbelievers into hell. We all deserve Hell, and he died to pay the debt we owe, and belief in his atoning death saves you. Sounds loving to me....

 

You can insist all you want that God is loving, gentle, forgiving, or merciful, when the Bible itself clearly demonstrates that he is not.

 

Please show were the Bible clearly demonstrates this.

 

I can tell you I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, you can take that to the world and tell them I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, we can all believe I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, but I'm not and I don't. We can take this paragraph and point out where it says "I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire" and ignore where it contradicts that, and we have modern Christianity in a nutshell. I'm not just talking liberal Christianity, but fundamentalists tend to pick and choose what they like too.

 

I take the Bible at its word, as do millions of others, and I find no contridiction.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

The problem with Craetionists is that they seem to be unevolved.

[Cantousent]

The problem with Craetionists is that they seem to be unevolved. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

hahahaha that was funny.

 

The creationist argument is a mess anyhow. Instead of being a religious vs science issue, it's become a sectarian battle zone.

[Child of Flame]

The problem with Craetionists is that they seem to be unevolved. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

hahahaha that was funny.

 

The creationist argument is a mess anyhow. Instead of being a religious vs science issue, it's become a sectarian battle zone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It made me laugh too. (Assuming that wasn't another of those 'sarcasm over the internet strikes again' moments. )

 

Ditto on the argument being a mess. I almost wish I could go back to my old private school and ask that they start teaching evolution in their Bible classes, you know, since creationism is just one way the universe could have came into existence even by their own text, thereby rendering it 'just a theory'.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

So, the question really doesn't revolve around belief in God, nor does it center on a discussion of tolerance.  Instead, you've gone through every scripture in the bible with a view to painting me, personally, as violent?  Consider that, by claiming that all Christians belong to a violent religion, you are creating a definition by which all Christians must be violent or they cannot be Christian.

 

...And I'm not cherry picking my beliefs, I just don't concede that the scriptures you cite are either more prominent or central to Christian thinking.  Like virtually everyone else in this world, including our now famous Buddhist, there is no document, writing, or scripture that can convey everything about my personal beliefs.

 

("Generally, Buddhism is considered one of the world's most peaceful faiths, although this is not always true, to wit Buddhist violence against Christians and Muslims in Sri Lanka."

 

http://www.caymannetnews.com/Archive/Archi...%20Yearend.html

 

That would be violence done in the name of religion, I suspect.) Like the Buddhist who committs violence because he is an imperfect Buddhist, I might be an imperfect Catholic.  After all, that imperfection probably cuts both ways, meaning that I am imperfect in my desire to avoid violence.

 

Moreover, what about Christ's affirmation of the old laws?  Is the exhortation to turn the other cheek more central to Christianity than "an eye for an eye?"  ...And what about the fact that judgement is reserved for the Lord.  I contend, your laundry list of old and new testament laws notwithstanding, that Christianity is, at heart, a non-violent religion.  If you think I'm wrong, feel free to continue attacking me.

 

Christianity is my faith.  Worse, Catholicism is my religion.  ...And yet I see no reason to either hate or ridicule a Buddhist.  To be honest, I've known many Buddhist (having lived in Asia for some time undoubtedly helped) and I've never had one attack my religion before.  They've been, to the person, a most tolerant and friendly group of people.  I wonder what most of them would think of you attacking Christianity with such fervor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not a Buddhist, so why would I care what they think of me attacking Christianity?

I do love how you twisted my comments on the Bible and the history of Christianity as a direct attack on you. I'm sure you're a Christian who would gladly suffer a witch to live, no matter what the Bible tells you to do. Frankly I'm glad so many Christians pick and choose what they wish to believe from the Bible otherwise this world would be a much more hellish place to live.

I just don't concede that the scriptures you cite are either more prominent or central to Christian thinking.

But they are scriptures. So why aren't they more prominent to Christian thinking? Because they're not nice. They don't fit in with the concept of a loving, merciful god, not unless someone really twists the meanings of "loving" and "merciful" in their minds.

So who decides what in the Bible should be followed? What are these beliefs being based on? The only source of the alleged words of Jesus are the Bible, but unless every word in that book are accurate, how would someone know which are true and which are false? People are told that God is peaceful and loving, so those are the words they gravitate to, but it's not a peaceful and loving book. If the Bible is truth, then I am bound for a lake of fire, and yet I've done nothing in my life to deserve that fate. Peaceful and loving. Merciful.

Yeah, right.

[Cantousent]

So, you don't care what Buddhists think and yet you're willing to attack Christianity on their behalf. Okay.

 

...And, by attacking all Christians, you are attacking me personally. I thought that would be apparent.

 

As for your other arguments, I'm more than willing to let them stand beside my own and let others decide which of us is more tolerant.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Yes one of those quotes I gave was Jesus (full disclosure: I don't think he actually existed)

 

To believe Jesus didn't exist is to reject historical fact. There is abundant evidence to show he did exist. Whether or not you believe he was God is up to you, but for the sake of your argument, I suggest you bite the bullet and admit he was a historical person. Do you believe in Julius Ceaser? How about Alexander the Great? How about Buddha? Sun Tzu? Mohammad?

Clicky

Clicky

Clicky

As opposed to the tons of evidence leading to Caesar and Alexander having been real people. If there was "abundant evidence" showing an historical Jesus, there wouldn't be a controversy. I believe based on evidence, and while I would still doubt his divinity without adequate proof, I'd still believe in an historical Jesus if the evidence really was there.

 

saying that the law never changed.

 

No, he said he "came to fulfill the Law", ie complete it. You can't pick up a bible (or any book for that matter) and find one verse you like and then misquote it.

How do you "complete" a law? If Jesus did exist, how did that negate the law against eating pork or committing adultery? The Ten Commandments that Southern judges and legislators are so fond of posting in public buildings are in the OT, but weren't they "completed" by Jesus like the rest of the OT laws? You think I'm misquoting, so let's see what follows my original quote...

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

It sounds to me like the laws of the OT are still in good standing according to The Lord.

 

And if something was an abomination to God with the Israelites, how is it suddenly okay for non-Israelites who worship him? If it was an abomination to God then, and isn't now, that's a fickle omnipotent, omniscient deity who can change his mind from one century to the next (who apparently went and created all those abominations in the first place).

 

What "Abominations" are you referring to?

Okay, you're a Christian and you're not familiar with "abominations" in the Bible? Well, please, let me oblige...

Lev 7:18 And if [any] of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

 

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:

 

Lev 11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you.

 

(At this point many more animals are an abomination, and why he'd make so many abominations is beyond me, so let's skip this and go into other abominations.)

 

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

 

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them. (And look, the death penalty for homosexuals! Luckily for gays everywhere Jesus completed the law and no longer need to be put to death.)

 

On to Deuteronomy...

Deu 7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it] unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is] an abomination to the LORD thy God.

 

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Uh oh, I'd better throw away my pants and stick to skirts.)

Okay, this goes on and on. There are so many abominations, I'm surprised God can handle getting up in the morning. You early chastised me for supposedly taking a quote out of context, but you're not even familiar with abominations in the Bible?

 

Granted he wasn't slaughtering people as gleefully as he was in the OT by the hundreds and thousands by the time he got to the NT, so maybe he took a omnipotent Xanax.

 

Gleefully? Evidence from the text he did it gleefully? What does the text say was the reason he did it? Have you read it?

The "gleefully" was me editorializing. Do you really need me to go back to the Bible to show the countless thousands slaughtered, including innocent children? "Gleeful" is editorializing, "blood-thirsty" isn't.

 

As for loving, gentle, and forgiving, how can adherents be expected to live with those qualities when the god they worship tosses non-believers or unrepentant "sinners" (is adultery, homosexuality, or false witness as bad as murder or rape? into a lake of fire and eternal torment?

 

No sin "harder" to forgive than any other. The NT teaches that Lust=Adultury/rape and Hate=Murder.

And "Lust=Adultury/rape [sic]" seems reasonable to you? "Hate=Murder" seems reasonable? A thought or emotion is equal to an action is reasonable to you? If so, I'm committing assault and battery right now. "He was trying to shoot me so I shot him" is self-defence. "He hated me so I shot him" is murder, and pretty psychopathic at that. And no, I'm not saying you're psychopathic. I'm saying the God of the Bible as written is.

 

He doesn't "toss" unbelievers into hell. We all deserve Hell, and he died to pay the debt we owe, and belief in his atoning death saves you. Sounds loving to me....

Why do we deserve hell? I've never killed anyone, raped anyone, and the only theft I've committed was as a teenage and I regret that. I hold doors and elevators for people, say "please" and "thank you". I've had unpleasant thoughts, but outside of a few words have never acted on them. I'm bisexual and have had sex with consenting adult men and women (but not in the same way with each, and I'm not a man, so I'm not sure if that's an abomination or not). So why do I deserve eternal torment? So why do we all deserve hell, because God said so?

Let's pretend God is real. That would mean that not only did he create the universe, he created heaven and hell. He then set the rules that would determine who goes where then gave us all sorts of flaws that would lead us to break those rules while all the while successfully hiding any and all evidence of his existance, which we need to accept to avoid hell. At some point, he decides to send his son, who is also himself, so he is both in one, to Earth to be born of a married virgin (was Joseph gay and Mary his beard?) and then to die for our sins, but we still have sins and can go to hell, and he can't really die because he is God, or the son of God who wasn't God so could die, but would be raised by God who... "why have thou forsaken me?" he asked of himself? But hey, believe in this mess or you will burn eternally.

If a child stopped believing in Santa Claus would the parent be justified in whipping that child for the rest of their life? No, that's sick and twisted, but if God does it it's "loving and merciful". Give me a break.

 

You can insist all you want that God is loving, gentle, forgiving, or merciful, when the Bible itself clearly demonstrates that he is not.

 

Please show were the Bible clearly demonstrates this.

I already have. You just choose to believe that eternal torture is just fine.

 

I can tell you I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, you can take that to the world and tell them I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, we can all believe I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire, but I'm not and I don't. We can take this paragraph and point out where it says "I'm eight feet tall and breathe fire" and ignore where it contradicts that, and we have modern Christianity in a nutshell. I'm not just talking liberal Christianity, but fundamentalists tend to pick and choose what they like too.

 

I take the Bible at its word, as do millions of others, and I find no contridiction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You weren't even familiar with abominations, so maybe you should look harder.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Hmmm. I'm not sure where the quoting went wrong there...

[Atomic Space Vixen]

So, you don't care what Buddhists think and yet you're willing to attack Christianity on their behalf. Okay.

 

...And, by attacking all Christians, you are attacking me personally. I thought that would be apparent.

 

As for your other arguments, I'm more than willing to let them stand beside my own and let others decide which of us is more tolerant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My original comment regarding Buddhism...

Well, I believe in a religion because to me it makes the most sence. I don't care if studies show that religious people aren't as smart as non-religious people I will always believe in my religion. Also I have to say in general, religion is a good thing (except any violent religions).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which essentially leaves Buddhism and Wicca.

Others then chose to focus on Buddhism and compare its history and teachings to that of Christianity. I pointed out where they were wrong. That is hardly attacking Christianity on Buddhists' behalf. If I say Germany was involved in starting more world wars than Switzerland, then pointed to evidence, that is hardly attacking Germans on behalf of the Swiss. I also find it amazing that pointing out the negatives in Christianity's history and the Bible is "attacking Christianity". I'm sorry, I was unaware it was all above reproach.

I'd also like to be shown where I was "attacking all Christians." Did I say "all Christians are JERKS!"? No. I have attacked the validity of the Bible and the existance of Christ, which can be taken as an attack on all Christians because all Christians believe in at least parts of the Bible and they do believe in Jesus. And by saying "can be taken as an attack" I of course mean "will be taken as an attack" because I've been through this countless times before. Many Christians (note: not "all") take any questioning of their beliefs as a personal attack. I can't help that. All I can do is look at history, current events, and the Bible for source material.

I've also never made the claim that I'm tolerant of religions. I'm not. I believe religion is dangerous and has held humanity back from our potential for far too long. I know the promise of an afterlife brings comfort to believers (and hey, how many people who honestly believe in an afterlife think they're going to hell?) and unfortunately there are those who need the threat of punishment in the next life to be halfway decent members of society, but when I look at how much suffering is being caused in the name of religion even today I can't help but think how much of a better place the world would be without it. I look at suicide bombers, gay teenage suicides, AIDS spreading through Africa but so much pressure to keep condoms out of the discussion, sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, Israel, Lebanon, etc... So no, I'm not tolerant of religion.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Dagnabit, what's happening with my quotes?

[Cantousent]

It's not your quotes but your logic that is failing. ...But you could probably clean up the quotes the quotes just by taking out my name (I'm sure folks reading this thread, all four of us, will know who said what) and just making sure you have one open and one close quote for each citation.

 

Also, having read through the thread again, I see that I was mixing you up with someone else in this thread, which is really bad considering the other person. I see that you're doggedly sticking to your arguments, but you are not necessarily attacking Christians.

 

Still, you're quite persistant in claiming that Christianity is a violent faith. I continue to disagree. Inasmuchas you're deriding Christian principles, which seems apparent to me, I submit that you are attacking Christians. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attacking my beliefs and attacking me as a person. I respect that.

 

I don't believe that the foundations of Christianity are violent. In making the claim that Christianity is violent at heart, there's been far more cherry picking on your end than mine. After all, I must take scripture and blend it into a workable basis for my worldview. You, on the other hand, start with a premise and overlook all other considerations in making your point. There hasn't been so much as any attempt to understand the opposing view on your part, only doggedly persisting that Christianity is violent and Christians who don't understand the violence of their own religion are fooling themselves. That doesn't make sense. I maintain that Christians, along with all other human beings, must take their convictions and forge them into a reasonable foundation for a moral compass. ...And you have the advantage of knowing my religion and having free reign to attack it. (I assume you will concede that you are attacking my religion, even if you refrain from attacking the followers.) You have not given a cogent account of your own belief system and so I have nothing to attack. Of course, I doubt I'd spend much time attacking your beliefs anyhow. I'm just pointing out that it's much easier to attack someone elses belief than to defend your own. At least that's been my experience.

 

Still, I'm glad to see you're not the fellow claiming Catholics are pedaphiles. It puts the whole discussion in a different light. At least on my end.

[Nartwak]

Dagnabit, what's happening with my quotes?

[QUOTE]
[quote=Atomic Space Vixen,May 5 2005, 08:40 PM]
[quote=The Elite_elite,May 5 2005, 08:57 AM]
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

 

You left an open quote tag.

 

[213374U]

Clicky

Clicky

Clicky

As opposed to the tons of evidence leading to Caesar and Alexander having been real people. If there was "abundant evidence" showing an historical Jesus, there wouldn't be a controversy. I believe based on evidence, and while I would still doubt his divinity without adequate proof, I'd still believe in an historical Jesus if the evidence really was there.

Um, are those supposedly reliable sources?

 

Providing a link to "nobeliefs.com" or "infidels.org" hardly strengthens your discourse. I can provide some delightfully informative link (more!) to one of the most underrated sciences ever!

 

And the controversy about it is easy to explain. There is no real point in trying to refute the existance of Julius Caesar, since if he was proven a hoax, it would hardly change anything today. But proving that Jesus Christ didn't really exist would be a serious blow to many churches. Something very appealing to many people. Occam's Razor.

 

 

(oh, I could spend all day pointing out the misogyny)

While I'm not an expert in anything, let alone the Bible, I don't think the misoginy stems from it. It's a later (Catholic, mostly) invention. Christianism isn't inherently misogynistic.

 

About the quotes, the boards have a limit of quotations per post. If you exceed the limit, the quotations will be all messed up. If that happens, simply make two posts instead of fitting it all into one.

[Blarghagh]

Sir isaac newton was a devout christian. Albert einstein believed in god in a non conventional sense.

 

Islamic scholars took greek maths and advanced it.

 

Its not true that  being religious precludes intelligence.

 

Exceptions prove the rule.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Every Christian that I have personally met have been jerks, yelling at me to repent, forcing New Testament Bibles at me, and constantly say I am wrong in my beliefs.

[Rosbjerg]

Every Christian that I have personally met have been jerks, yelling at me to repent, forcing New Testament Bibles at me, and constantly say I am wrong in my beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

everyone I've met has been the easy going hippie kind .. even those Jesus-Freak-T-shirt-people .. just wanting to talk about their faith and hoping that I will see the light some day in my own time ..

 

but then we shoved all the bad ones to USA, so no wonder they are more extreme over there .. hehe

[random evil guy]

no, it is not proven that jesus did in fact exist.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...eally_live.html

 

now, you might say "infidels.org" are biased and maybe they are. that is not the point. the thing is, it is still uncertain whether the historc jesus really did live...

[FaramirK]

I have no idea what happened to your quotes...it happens to us all.

 

As opposed to the tons of evidence leading to Caesar and Alexander having been real people. If there was "abundant evidence" showing an historical Jesus, there wouldn't be a controversy. I believe based on evidence, and while I would still doubt his divinity without adequate proof, I'd still believe in an historical Jesus if the evidence really was there.

 

What is your tons of evidence? You do know that the NT is the most supported 1st Century source in history, right? As for your three sources, they are hardly reliable. You also realise, I assume, that the vast majority of Buddist, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Atheist and Agnostic Historians/Theologians/Philosophers would laugh you to scorn for actually believing one of the best evidenced people in history didn't exist. Your beliefs are not opposed to Christianity, they are full on anti-christian.

 

The evidence is there. Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), a Jewish-Roman historian makes mention of Christ, albeit only to say that he was a great teacher. There is one source for you. Google up the date of the oldest existing record of some of the other famous ancients. Compare the two.

 

How do you "complete" a law?

 

I was hoping you'd ask. :D If Your interested, I can PM or post the scripture referring to this...

 

The purpose of the Law is to show us that we can never measure up to God's standard of righteousness, because we are sinful. Therefore, the OT system involved animal blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, and faith in God's promise to one day send a saviour.

 

He did! He sent Christ (who was God) to live a perfect, sinless life, and die for our sins. His perfect sacrifice pays the debt of the Law, if you trust in his death and ressurection to pay for your sins. The Laws concerning personal holiness (like the pork one) can no longer condemn us, because Christ lived his whole earthly life without ever breaking one.

 

If Jesus did exist, how did that negate the law against eating pork or committing adultery? The Ten Commandments that Southern judges and legislators are so fond of posting in public buildings are in the OT, but weren't they "completed" by Jesus like the rest of the OT laws?

 

You are right! They were completed, so the American Judges insisting that they be posted in US courthouses do not understand that the Judicial Legal code of the OT has been completed and can no longer condemn us.

 

I don't need my government to think or want to be "under God", as the American one does. The Government should protect freedom of Thought and Speech, and also Action - with the exception of any action towards another against their will. All who oppose my beliefs have the same right as I do to question, verbally attack, and accept or deny it as I do. Total Separation of Church and State.

 

You think I'm misquoting, so let's see what follows my original quote...

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

And, as far as I know, the Law still exists in written form in its entirety as a symbol of the fact that we cannot work for our salvation. Don't stop in the Gospels, keep going.

 

Okay, you're a Christian and you're not familiar with "abominations" in the Bible? Well, please, let me oblige...

 

As stated above, these were to show mans sinfulness, and have now been completed bythe coming of Messiah. The bondage of the Law has been paid.

 

The "gleefully" was me editorializing. Do you really need me to go back to the Bible to show the countless thousands slaughtered, including innocent children? "Gleeful" is editorializing, "blood-thirsty" isn't.

 

I didn't know you had the qualification to edit the divinely conceived sola scriptura.

[FaramirK]

And "Lust=Adultury/rape [sic]" seems reasonable to you? "Hate=Murder" seems reasonable? A thought or emotion is equal to an action is reasonable to you? If so, I'm committing assault and battery right now.

 

Yes, you are. A thought/emotion IS the same as an action, because God judges mens hearts, not just they're actions. That should make it easier to forgive someone who physically hurt you, knowing your no better.

 

Why do we deserve hell? I've never killed anyone, raped anyone, and the only theft I've committed was as a teenage and I regret that.

 

Because you are a sinner, like the rest of us, in rebellion against God.

 

I'm bisexual and have had sex with consenting adult men and women (but not in the same way with each, and I'm not a man, so I'm not sure if that's an abomination or not).

 

Stop mis-using "abomination". All sin is an abomination. You are no more or less deserving of hell than a person who lies or steals something. We're all equally bad.

 

Let's pretend God is real. That would mean that not only did he create the universe, he created heaven and hell. He then set the rules that would determine who goes where then gave us all sorts of flaws that would lead us to break those rules while all the while successfully hiding any and all evidence of his existance.

 

You have to have faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. And whether or not you believe it, he gave you the capacity to trust him, and the freedom to reject him.

 

At some point, he decides to send his son

 

Did you know that the first prophesy of the coming of Christ is in Genesis, right after Adam and Eve sinned for the first time? He's been preparing to die for your sins for a long time.

 

(was Joseph gay and Mary his beard?)

 

No, Jospeh and Mary had several children after Christ was born, including Jude, who wrote the Book of Jude.

 

You weren't even familiar with abominations, so maybe you should look harder.

 

Tsk tsk, thats not entirely accurate is it? For the sake of our eyes, you may want to focus on one point, rather than answering every one of my srguments, or PM me, or continue as is. I'll happily continue.

[FaramirK]

Every Christian that I have personally met have been jerks, yelling at me to repent, forcing New Testament Bibles at me, and constantly say I am wrong in my beliefs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, the "Christians" in the US are rather strange, most of them that I've met seem to want to create the United States of Jesus, and burn Liberals and Gays at the stake. Personally, I'd rather live in a place where everyone is free to choose and live without fear of persecution. I grew up in a place where my beliefs could get you tortured and hated, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

[213374U]

now, you might say "infidels.org" are biased and maybe they are. that is not the point. the thing is, it is still uncertain whether the historc jesus really did live...

No, it's not a matter of bias. We're all biased one way or the other, aren't we?

 

It's a matter of "infidels.org" not being worth jack as a reputed source of historical research.

[WITHTEETH]

There is nothing about jesus until 100 years after his death. thats when the stories of him started. If he did exist he never left in writing himself that atleast has been found. I guess you have to take that "leap of Faith again".

 

any of the chrsitians here beleive this was a sign from god?Veirgin Marry in Highway Underpass, Or Just A Salt Stain?

 

Virgin Mary Chicago Underpass, looks like a bum went pee...

 

Heres the grilled cheese one from awhile back :D YUM!

[213374U]

Yep. And the US never got to the moon.

[Rosbjerg]

I am not very fond of taking relativism to the extreme just for the sake of it. If we need to "agree" on certain things, we are effectively denying the existance of self-evident truths. I find it difficult and generally pointless to make conversation with people that like doing that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just for the record .. I'm not taking a relativist stand! because that actually requires self-evident thruths ..

I'm saying

you can't compare, unless you believe in a common reality and thus ceartinties to which you can compare things ..

that the only thing I can be certain of, is my interpretation of reality and it's not certain if you compare it to the common reality (but to me it's real).

 

my argument this entire time has been, in order for you to rely on anything outside of your head you need a leap of faith .. since you don't know and you can't see, hear, feel etc anything but your own reality ..

 

sorry for dragging that into the light .. but I just wanted to clear that up .. "