Christian Universalism

[brad_religion]

I just wanted to share with this forum what happened in another forum I was a part of. I had posted a response to a topic started by an atheist at : http://www.tentmaker.org/smf/index.php?topic=2442.0

 

He was being unfairly treated and told me he was banned from the moderator. I was surprised because universalists claim that tolerance is one of their things. Anyway, I had posted on that forum when I was a christian universalist (right before I embraced atheism). The moderator removed my posts that he didn't like, but I feel I should rectify it so you can see that universalists are just as nuts as fundamentalists are.

 

So, please enjoy

 

Hi, I haven't been on the forum for a while. I just wanted to say I think David is right on the money in most of what he said. I think he might have been better to do it a little more tastefully, but nevertheless, it was said. I have been an atheist since my last post in this forum, which also happened to be about me switching to atheism. At first, I glanced at deism, which is almost like atheism in every way, except they have a first cause belief. Outside of that, deists and atheists are almost indistinguishable (at least from my conversations with both types of people).

 

The one thing that bothered me is that Gary wrote that 3-piece article which basically said atheists are just as irrational as Christians are. He also associated atheists with communists. I find this eerily similar to the McCarthy era of the 50’s. He demonized atheists as communists and many were blacklisted from their careers in several areas. Atheists are the most distrusted minority in America today, more than gays, blacks, witches, etc. The thing is that you cannot blame atheism for what communism did. The reason is simple. There is no holy book of atheism that instructs followers on issues of morality or behavior. There is no priestcraft that commands unrelenting loyalty to the death in atheism. However, with religions like Christianity and Islam, there is a holy book which gives instructions and there is a priestcraft which commands unrelenting loyalty to the death. We see such things everyday in the news. A woman who cuts off her baby’s arms because “Jesus” commanded cutting off body parts in the bible. Andrea Yates drowns her 5 children because of some insane idea they would go to hell and she wanted to save them. David Koresh enslaves adults and children alike in a fortress compound in Waco, Texas. Osama Bin Laden and his followers kill 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. So many more examples can be given of people who were followers of the bible or the quran, but can refer to specifically the monotheistic brutality of the 3 major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism to a lesser degree).

 

I think it is ironic that Gary says atheistic societies are immoral, yet the ones who have the most immorality are facist Christian / Islamic states (and the USA is increasingly turning into one). Not only that, but also what is his definition of “morality”? The only ultimate morality is “Do no unnecessary harm to another person”. Christianity from its Gnostic beginning to its ultimate demise has done the most harm to humanity bar none. Christians are commanded in both testaments to do harm to other people (pick your poison from what scriptures you like). Their godman told them to annoy the hell out of others by “preaching” the gospel, and they have attempted to do it ever since the words were penned by the church father that wrote it. To say that atheism is to blame for the immorality of a communist state is asinine and completely false. They never killed ANYONE for not being an atheist. But, I can give plenty of examples of CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS killing people for not being their religion. The reason that communists killed people was because they were a threat to them somehow (and it wasn't because of god worship either, since Stalin tolerated the church and even let people worship their god during the war). It is assumed by Christians I have met that Christianity has some sort of "absolute morality”, and atheism has moral relativism. This is why double standards are best left to Christians. They define double standards! Both Christians and atheists use moral relativism. Just ask 20 Christians 10 questions about different “moral” issues and ask them what should be done about it. You most likely will get at least half who do not agree on moral issues. Yet, they all read the bible (or at least should). Better yet, ask 20 Christians who DO read the bible and see how many disagree on “moral” issues. If there is at least 25% of disagreement with moral issues, from people who actually read the bible, the only conclusion is, that a bible believing person will use relative morality, just as they say atheists do. The only difference is, atheists are HONEST about such matters. The Christian has a very good reason for lying (whether intentional or unintentional). The difference is that Christians typically want to have the APPERANCE of superiority, but the reality is they are morally inferior. A recent study of the religious background of the U.S. prison population said something very intriguing. Please check it out at http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

 

It seems to show that the Christians are the ones with the morality problem, if the criminal justice system is any indicator. On average, less than 1% of the prison population is atheist or non-believer. The interesting thing is that the entire population of non-believing Americans is about 8-10%. Yet, on average, about 2/3 of the prison population is one or another form of Christian. That means that per capita, 3 out of 5 Christians are criminals, yet atheists and non-believers are only 1 out of 8.

 

Another difference is that when a Christian does something abhorrent, and they believe it is justified, they use the BIBLE to support it. An atheist cannot do it. They are responsible for their own actions, not cowardly blame it on following a book or a leader. Also, if atheists are so immoral, why is it that many of the European secular societies are still thriving? Such as Sweden? The reason the USA has thrived for over 200 years is because of the secular democracy that the forefathers established. It was the first modern nation of its time to do something unheard of…have no religion above another. And religion has had much longer to thrive than atheism (when it comes to purely atheistic societies).

And if you ask any atheist parent what they would do if their child became a theist, they would probably love that child the same way because they understand BELIEFS are not as important as ACTIONS. Now, they might be disappointed if their child simply embraced a religion without investigating it first. That is all any rational person would do.

 

Imagine, if you lived in Iran, you would most likely be a Muslim. Yet, if you live in the USA, most likely you will be a Christian (or at least believe in the Christian biblegod). Isn’t it amazing that people just HAPPEN to believe in the religion of their culture? And it is usually the religion of their parents. I find it more interesting that if you live in a 50 mile radius among only 10 major denominations of Christianity and you end up being “converted” to Christianity, you will most likely to convert to the denomination which is convenient driving distance. I find it interesting that the almighty biblegod can’t convert a person to Oneness Pentecostalism in places where such churches are not near by. If it wasn’t for the Internet, they probably wouldn’t know such a church denomination existed.

 

People in the USA who are born into Christian homes begin to be indoctrinated from birth (whether baptism or dedication). This is their first initiation into the faith (gee, what happened to free will?). Then they are constantly bombarded with images of the “nice” Jesus motif (which makes them sympathetic for him later on). They are given picture books about Noah’s flood with happy characters on a boat, but they never show the reality of such a thing if it happened (all the dead bodies floating in the water). This is called “selective observation” where you brainwash a child into an ideology before they can critically think for themselves. We have all agreed that the proper voting age is 18 in the USA, because we know an 8 year old cannot distinguish politics from Sesame Street. We know they cannot critically look at the issues until they are developed enough for rational thought. Yet, we don’t give them the same treatment with religion. I think that is because politics is clearly a realm of REALITY, and it doesn’t take much to see that politics run society. Religion, which is the realm of FANTASY would not as easily be accepted if the person only began to be indoctrinated at the age of 18 years. So, what you will have after 18 years of clever and subtle brainwashing is a person who is sympathetic to their own religious beliefs and hostile to everyone else’s. Just ask yourself, would it be wrong to brainwash a child into believing that they are an evil person who deserves punishment for being born? If so, you have just shown why religion is dangerous, especially to children. I don’t know of a more immoral act than abusing a child with fairy tales and punishments for not believing them.

 

If Christians were TRULY rational, as atheists, they would critically examine ALL things, not just selective things. They would have investigated Christianity and its history before they believed it. They would have made sure “Jesus Christ” was a real person who existed, instead of foolishly accepting he did. They would be CRITICAL of the biblegod when it does atrocities and commands the killing of children. If you are not disgusted by the imaginary friend you call “biblegod” in spite of the bible clearly saying what it does and thinks, then you are NOT a rational person. A rational person doesn’t justify murder whether a man or his invented god do it (and the mythology in the bible is fiction, which is somewhat of a relief). A rational person doesn’t justify raping women or looking down on them as inferior, whether a man or his invented god do it. A rational person doesn’t agree with an author of a book who says that a man who got drunk and had sex with his 2 daughters was a “righteous” person. A rational person doesn’t think it is wise to follow a character in a story which says to: drink blood, cut off body parts (including your testicles), threaten people for simply not believing such a story, break up families, kill children, and so on. If you say “those are out of context”, then the character who said them should have used a better set of words.

 

So, you can take this however you wish. But, let me clearly point out, atheism is simply having no beliefs in ANY gods, nothing more, nothing less. And, for the Christian who says atheism is still bad, just ask yourself why you don’t believe in the thousands of other gods that are worshipped in the world today and countless others in the past? Because you are also an atheist, I just go 1 god further.

 

 

If "god is love", and such a god exists, we have to conclude that such a god is NOT all powerful (which means it isn't really much of a god, is it?) Just look at the 26,000 children who die of starvation everyday who want a measely piece of food to live. It seems only PEOPLE want to feed them, your god is nowhere to be found. We read that the biblegod could feed a prophet with a raven during a famine, but the same god can't help 26,000 innocent children who starve to death everyday? Then, you also do NOT believe your god is the "same yesterday, today and forever". Like I said in my earlier post, a person who is rational would not ignore the obvious hypocrisy found in the pages of the bible, but be willing to critically examine their own religion, and you apparently don't want to. Why don't you tell those little children who are starving how much "god" loves them, but won't lift his almighty finger to help them. They will tell you to go f**k yourself.

 

 

 

Just one more thing before I log off. I am kind of disappointed in Gary. The man wrote an article attacking atheism as being communism (which is a total farce). He then proceeded to say that christians look for "wisdom in the scriptures". He then says a theory like evolution is not a fact. I am disappointed because if he bothered to study what a scientific theory is, it is not just a "lucky guess" as the layman might think. The reason evolution, gravity, heliocentricity are all theories is they have all been investigated, tested, observed (depending on which field), etc. They also have a method called "falsifiability". In other words, after their theory has been run through the muck of scientific peers (who attempt to disprove it), they offer what evidence they would consider as proof their theory does not work. How many christians would be willing to say "I will accept this evidence which would disprove Jesus Christ's existence"? I can't think of any. So, it seems Gary is using a double standard like the rest of christendom. He obviously was a lousy atheist who did not critically examine christianity (which any good atheist would do). Instead, he fell for the idea of an imaginary friend and threw logic out of the window.

 

Also, to those who think I left christianity because I was "hurt", obviously ignored all the rational reasons I reject it. I was "Hurt" long before I left christianity, so that is not the reason I left. I left because I simply put down my superiority complex and examined the bible and christianity the same way I had examined islam or hinduism.

 

I would think that if Gary lived in Iran, he would have become a Muslim universalist (perhaps the Bahai faith). But, he lives in the USA, so of course, he thinks the biblegod exists (like 85% of the US population). But that doesn't prove it is anymore real than Santa Claus (in fact, we know there was a Saint Nicholas in history). Facts require EVIDENCE and there is none for any religion, including christianity. I made up a quote the other day and it goes like this "Show me a religion that has evidence for its claims, and I will show you a faithless philosophy."

 

I don't think Gary has "turned the other cheek" as he claims, because he is verbally attacking atheism and blaming it for the crimes of statist societies. He has to use ad hominem arguments in order to secure his own irrational ideology as being "true". I wish he would be honest instead of attacking science and atheists with lame arguments that childish people use. But, then again, he is doing what his holy book says (be like little children).

 

Have a good day

 

 

Greetings Brad,

 

You said : “I have often wondered if it would have been better for me to go through life as an Atheist, and then come to the point of being introduced to Gods Presence. To go from believing in nothing Spiritually, and then embark on the learning Tree of Truth, I think has many advantages. So in my view, it is better to come to know the True and living God from being an Atheist, than having to be deprogrammed from years of deceptive religious mess in your mind. So I personally consider Atheist, as having a unique opportunity to close the gap between them and God much quicker than the vast majority of people God will call. There is less to be removed. You, and other Atheist, are in a very different vantage point which I almost envy, I think it is a calling ground that God has already tapped into. Paul was an atheist, and God tapped into him. Some may not agree that Paul was one, but I think he was in his heart.”

 

Response : Firstly, the fact you consider your particular version of christianity the “tree of truth” is a declaration that you have not thoroughly examined it. I am going to guess when you say Paul, you are talking about the apostle Paul found in the new testament. But you need to be corrected. Paul, according to the new testament, was a pharisee, not an atheist. He believed in the biblegod as you do. So, using him as an example of how atheists are is a straw man (say a person believes something they don’t really believe and then knock over the pseudo belief as if they did believe it). You say he was an atheist in his heart. The word atheist means “a person who has no belief in any god or gods”. Yet, we know that according to the bible, Paul did believe in the biblegod, therefore he was not an atheist. He thought he was doing what his god wanted him to do, so obviously it was not being an atheist in his heart.

 

You said : “The miracle of conversion, and it is truly a miracle, will change the outlook of our minds. Paul's outlook was that very similar of many Atheist, he dispis ed Christians so much, that he went to the high Priest and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, planning on using these Letters to trace Christians and bring them bound to Jerusalem, that is those he didnot kill first. Paul, then still Saul, had a horrible disposition toward Christians, his very breath comming out of him spoke threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord. Acts 9:1-2. Do you think God paid attention to this man, he most certainly did! From this Atheist, God formed the very Doctrines of the Church itself. I don't think people really understand the things that constitute the scope of the Epistles of Paul. Through Paul, the very mystery's of the Ages were Revealed. God decided to do this, build this through the mind of an Atheist, and I think that is interesting, God does not change in his Pathology, or his approach to people. He tapped into an Atheist to do this. And that holds a very unique significance.”

 

Response : As I said, you are using a straw man argument. You first say something untrue (Paul was an atheist), then you use that untruth and say Paul despised christians so much which is “similar of many atheists”. To assume atheists despise christians is a slap in the face of reality. The average atheist has no interest in what christians do or believe. As long as the christians don’t bother them with “preaching the gospel”, they will have no problem with them. Then, you proceeded to say that Paul the atheist wanted to kill christians and persecute them. This is an ad hominem attack on atheists (since you said Paul had the same outlook that many atheists have). Why do you have to intentionally lie like that? Do you think you have any integrity? The difference is that I could say that many christians want to kill atheists and have done so in the past, and I would not be lying. What atheists have persecuted you for being a christian? Also, you are referring to the book of Acts, which is a very late date text. It is a mythological story similar to the types of mythology the gospels contain in them. It is not historic whatsoever. Yet, you foolishly assume it is true. As far as the “epistles of Paul”, only 8 of the 13 can be attributed to the same author, but the other ones we don’t know who wrote them (and even if the same author wrote them, they might have used the name Paul to fit the story of Acts). And as far as a “mystery”, that is exactly what gnosticism is. If you read Paul’s epistles, you will not see him mention an earthly, fleshly Jesus of Nazareth who was some historical figure. Rather, you will see his Gnostic tendencies of a heavenly saviour, a cosmic christ who changed the law of Moses into garbage. There are many identical points that Paul’s epistles have with gnosticism. Hatred of the flesh, hatred of the material world, a non-fleshly christ, mystery, revelation, prophecy. He also promoted the sexist views of the Gnostics (which sound similar to the sexism of the Gnostic gospel of Thomas).

 

You said: “We can know from this that God views Atheist, different than his very anointed may even. God does not respect what we were before his calling, his respect is developed after we are called, but his Love is always there for us before we were Born. Let me show you how significant this Atheist was. Although Christ revealed and taught that the Church is an organism, through Paul was given the detailed revelations of the Body of Christ in its Heavenly calling, promises and its true destiny. Through him also were unfolded the organization and Administration of local Churches. The fact that Paul was an Atheist , is passed over in relative silence. I encourage you to consider these things in Paul's Life, if you ever choose to Consider God. The things that God can do with an Atheist, are nothing short of astounding. I see no reason for that to change. In you, and other Atheist, is the potential of a greatness that only God can see, and use.”

 

Response : You are just regurgitating the same crap you said in the previous paragraph, and have gone from your merely thinking Paul was an atheist “in his heart” to deceitfully saying “the fact” Paul was an atheist. A fact requires evidence, and there is no evidence there was a guy named Paul, nor that anything in Acts actually happened to such a person historically. Even if you could, you still could not prove that Paul was an atheist. Why would I choose to consider a god who lets LIARS like you flap your gums about things you have no clue about?

 

 

You said : “I say this, because I already believe it, and Paul is not the only Atheist God has used, or will use. And when he comes for you, there will be nothing you can do about it. Although some believe in free will choice, I do not, when he comes for you, there will be no choice. Case in point; notice Paul, then Saul, in Acts 7th and 8th chapters. Stephen had just been stoned. 8:1, says Saul was in " Hearty" agreement with them killing him. Notice that disposition, he was " Glad in his Heart", overjoyed that Stephen was Killed. In 8:2-3, they buried Stephen and began mourning over his death. But look at what Saul's disposition was, vs.8, he began " Ravaging" the church, entering house after house, like the soldiers in an army would do in search of an enemy. Dragging off men AND women, putting them in prison. Oh this man was an Atheist for sure, no doubt in my mind about that. He had a great zeal to destroy anything that he thought walked in what they called " The Way", back then. So he hated the " Way" to God.”

 

Response : Once again, you are LYING by saying this Paul person was an atheist. How interesting, you say I cannot do anything about God who “comes for you”. The problem is that there is no god to do such a thing. If you REALLY believe that your god is the only true god and such a god “comes to you” without your permission, then why doesn’t it come to EVERYONE the same way and prove it exists and give a clear message on what to believe? Certainly, that would not be hard for such a god to do. But that is not what happens in reality, because god is an idea, a concept. Each person who believes in a god, creates their own concept which revolves around a specific holy book or things they find instruction in. And why are you telling me the story of what Acts 7 and 8 say? Are you assuming I have never read the bible? I was a Christian for 18 years, so you can save the trouble of telling me what I already know. Also, you demonize atheists for doing something (great zeal to destroy) that YOU are doing (you are using great zeal to destroy the character of all atheists, by accusing them of being murderers). Yet, you expect me to think you LOVE me or other atheists whom you insult? You must think people are as stupid as you are to fall for such hypocrisy.

 

You said : “Now examine, only as a point of intrest, Saul's Conversion in Acts 9: 3-5. Only three verses describe Paul's conversion, imagine that, how quick that was. There was no struggle, no God " Asking" him to submit his will to him, God didnot give him an opportunity to " Choose" him, nor did God go through some kind of far out mystical Spiritual exchange. He simply appeared in the form of Light, asked Saul why he was persecuting him, introduced himself to Saul, and just simply told him what to do. And Paul just simply did it. And thats what is the destiny of all Atheist.

 

And there is simply nothing any of them can do about this.”

 

Response : While it is a nice bedtime story to tell children, the fact remains there is no evidence for any of it actually happening. You might as well read the book of Mormon to me and tell me all the wonderful adventures of the native Americans who Jesus preached to. It is identical in that it has no validity in the mind of anyone who isn’t a religious robot who is programmed to believe it without questioning it. I suggest before you begin to try to tell me all the things about the bible, you first examine yourself. You have openly attempted to insult my intelligence, along with give a double standard (I love you, but I will lie to everyone and say you are a murderer). You have to be one of the lamest apologists I have met so far.

 

 

Peace, Mickiel.

 

PS – what kind of “peace” should anyone expect from a man who is so delusional to think atheists want to and will kill Christians, when the fact is just the opposite (Christians have and want to kill atheists)?

 

 

Hi Lovetruth, I will do my normal response, which is one paragraph at a time.

 

You said : "atheism can be noble and courageous. fundamentally, life isn't about our opinions/beliefs, it's all about what Spirit do we serve? Jesus found more faith in the centurion than He did in all of israel. was that because the centurion secretly believed in judaism and in Jesus as the messiah? no, it was about walking in Reality when he saw it. the centurion was honest about Who Jesus was and came to Him in practical need. he honored Him as a man with some real spiritual authority and power. do you think he subscribed to any system of belief about Him? no. he just took things as they were and was honest."

 

Response : I agree, fundamentally, life is not about opinions or beliefs. Life is about surviving. All animals including humans have this built in natural response to survive when threatened with danger (whether perceived or real). However, opinions and beliefs can oftentimes surround the survival instinct. Imagine if you are told by a mechanic that you have cancer. You could care less, because you don't BELIEVE you have cancer (since a mechanic is not qualified to make a statement like that). However, if you went to a doctor that you trusted and he said the exact same thing, most likely you would BELIEVE you have cancer, and therefore it would change how you view your survival. To say "it's all about what Spirit do we serve?", is highly opinionated and what you believe, but not a fact. I find it ironic that in the very same sentence, you said an obvious contradiction. You cannot claim life is NOT about opinions and beliefs, and then claim life is ALL about what Spirit we serve (which is itself a belief or opinion). You should clarify you BELIEVE Jesus said those things (if he existed at all of course), that certainly doesn't mean it happened. And for every "good" scripture you refer to that shows "Jesus" saying something beneficial, there are probably 5 things that I could refer to that show Jesus was a jerk. That is what happens when people believe a clear mythological story is a historical fact (even though there is no evidence for it). Also, you said that having more "faith" in something is "walking in reality when he saw it". Just one problem. Faith is believing something which has NO evidence for it (and therefore, if you see something to confirm it is real, it is no longer by faith).

 

 

 

You said : "pastor richard wurmbrand met a muslim mullah in communist prison who operated with wisdom and peace and a beautiful Spirit. he also spoke of Jesus with great reverence. this surprised pastor wurmbrand very much. he asked the man about it. the mullah said that Jesus was a great and wise prophet who spoke the words of God but that he could by no means accept that he was the son of God. pastor wurmbrand realized where this man was coming from and said,'i agree with you,' the muslim was shocked and asked,'how can you, a christian, say this?' wurmbrand answered,'because by your thinking a child is the result of a man and woman being physically intimate. this is not how Jesus is God's son, but because as a child looks like its parent, so Jesus was full of the Spirit of God, speaking His words and living His Nature perfectly.' the muslim bowed and said gravely,'in this way, i, too can accept.' this story taught me much about what our faith must be in."

 

Response : Using these silly examples of "interfaith" theology does NOTHING to prove either belief is true. It just proves that people are so biased in their own religious ideology, they don't bother to study what another person believes. And, I might remind you that I am an ATHEIST, I don't believe the bible is true nor do I believe Jesus existed, so you might as well tell me what the Easter Bunny said in a fictional story. It might have a moral lesson scattered throughout it, but that does not make it a literally true story.

 

 

You said : "do we want truth? do we want love? what do we turn to as a basis for our responses to life circumstances and other people? what spirit speaks through our mouths and our actions? a spirit of religion or the spirit of truth? oh, we can speak religious words and still be full of truth. we can speak in a new age way and be speaking truthfully, we can use atheist language. we all have to speak a language, but atheist or religious, deist or agnostic, the spirit we seek is the thing that matters. it must be. 'now, the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.' the apostle john says that God is Love and that he who loves knows God! that's quite the nonreligious statement."

 

Response : You keep stating things as if they are facts, when in reality, they are merely your sole opinion and beliefs. I think you are either too naive to know what atheists believe and expect in order to believe something, or you are aware of it, but attempt to INSULT other people (how mentally ill do you have to be to not listen to the request of others?). You have no evidence that a "spirit" exists anymore than Santa's elves work in the North Pole. You have to be completely stupid to think an atheist "seeks a spirit". I suggest you read what an atheist is at www.dictionary.com. And as if that wasn't bad enough, you say "the apostle john says that God is Love and that he who loves knows God". However, you have no proof there was an apostle John that even existed, nor that he penned such a thing (do you really think that because a church father takes a guess at the name of an author, that means it is true? I think you are a sad example of a person who simply believes what you read and/or hears because you trust it rather than investigating it first, to be sure they are not LYING to you. But, that would require critical thinking, which you obviously do not use. All that proves to me is that you are just like every other christian I meet, believing the dumbest things and declaring them to be true without any evidence for them. Shame on you!

 

You said : "people of any persuasion can be very honest and sincere in their perspectives and have very good reasons for what they believe. but do we believe something because we want Truth or because we are bitter, angry, rebellious, fearful or eager to be 'right'? do we protect our ideas or seek what is best for the other person where s/he is at right now today?

 

hey, brad, can you believe in love and the spirit of Jesus? can you seek to live by His beautiful spirit of love, spiritual wisdom, and self-sacrifice?"

 

Response : You have not shown you have any honesty or integrity for that matter. You have said several dishonest things, which any decent person would not say. You are clearly trying to insult my intelligence (or unintentionally showing your own lack of intelligence). There is NO good reason to believe in something that has no evidence for it. And if you REALLY wanted truth, you could critically examine the bible and realize it is a set of superstitious writings which oftentimes contradicts, because different people wrote it who had differences of opinions. I am not "bitter, angry, rebellious, fearful", however I am eager to be "right" because being right is based upon evidence for one's conclusions, not who has the most "faith" in something. I am frustrated that christians like yourself are still up to your old, childish games. I just wish I could meet one christian who doesn't resort to stupid remarks and attempts to sound superior, when the opposite is generally the case. I don't "protect" my ideas, because my ideas could be flawed (if I am shown evidence they are flawed). But to keep believing something in spite of the evidence against it, means not only being dishonest, it means being brainwashed (what you might consider a CULT member believes). I do seek for what is best for other people, because I am a decent person. I don't have to LIE to them, as you are doing to me. I believe what is best for a person is an education and critical thinking skills, otherwise, they'll turn into a person like you, who believes the dumbest things and tries to insult other people's intelligences.

 

I "can" believe in love, because I have the ability to. I "can" believe in the spirit of Jesus, because I have the ability to. However, I don't HAVE to do either one. I do believe in love and I try my best to put it into action. You do NOT need a godman or a godman's "spirit" to be able to love someone. Why the hell would I "want" to seek something I am sure does not exist? Do you go around "seeking" Hercules or Zeus? Do you go around seeking for Invisible Pink Unicorns? Of course not, because you don't believe in them. As far as Jesus having a "beautiful spirit of love", that is not what the bible teaches (it in fact, says many times, Jesus is a jerk who hates his enemies). Jesus had no "spiritual wisdom" in the bible, outside of any other culture's saviour gods. But more often than not, Jesus said to do some of the most foolish things I can imagine. He contradicted himself, and kept changing his mind. Jesus did not have "self-sacrifice", because that which is not necessary does not prove it is necessary. And like I said, Jesus is a mythological character which is poorly written about in a story, which is written by superstitious people. If Jesus said the truth in the gospels, we would have no need for doctors, hospitals, medicine, food banks, FEMA, money, etc. How many christians believe in using those services, including yourself? If so, you are NOT following the "wisdom" of Jesus.

 

Like I keep saying, grow up already and stop believing in an imaginary friend. It clearly is turning you into an irrational religious robot.

[NotBlinded]

Well...I guess there are fundamentalists in every group. I happen to like the Unitarian/Universalist church that I have gone to a few times. I haven't felt rejected yet, but I've only been 3 times. I do plan on returning though.

 

Maybe you should look at Jesus as a teacher instead of a god-man and maybe you can find wisdom there. I am not saying that this wisdom can't be found elsewhere, but it might help you to see it if you weren't looking at him from a biblical standpoint that the church created. Give the guy a break...he can't help it if a group of people took what he said and used it for power and fortune. They did the exact opposite of what he stood for, or against actually. They created a relgious institution that was exclusive in order to worship him. He hated religious institutions that claimed God was exclusive. I feel for the guy!

[HadouKen24]

It should be noted that Christian Universalism is the heterodox view that everyone gets to go to heaven at some point, possibly after a (relatively) short stint in something like Hell or Purgatory. The Unitarian Universalist church is a group that has no real official doctrine (that I can find, anyway) and tries to treat all religions with respect, and leave matters of faith up to the individual. Two entirely different groups.

[NotBlinded]

It should be noted that Christian Universalism is the heterodox view that everyone gets to go to heaven at some point, possibly after a (relatively) short stint in something like Hell or Purgatory. The Unitarian Universalist church is a group that has no real official doctrine (that I can find, anyway) and tries to treat all religions with respect, and leave matters of faith up to the individual. Two entirely different groups.

Thanks! I was wondering what the difference was.

[Ouroboros]

Paul was an atheist, and God tapped into him. Some may not agree that Paul was one, but I think he was in his heart.”

Paul, supposedly studied theology his whole life and persecuted Christians because they were not "pure" Jewish... would equal atheist... Yeah! Right!

 

I guess this makes all Jews back then and today Atheists.

 

Would the same go for all Roman Pagans too?

 

And maybe all Muslims and Hindus are Atheists too?

 

Is the definition "Atheist = Non Christian" nowdays? What's going on with people? Have they lost the last fraction of sanity and logic?

[NotBlinded]

Is the definition "Atheist = Non Christian" nowdays? What's going on with people? Have they lost the last fraction of sanity and logic?

Hans, I remember thinking along those lines also. Afterall, when one understands that the God of the bible is the only God there is, then any other belief is equal to being an atheist. Ignorance claims a whole lot of sanity, but it is innocent to some. I didn't know there was any other beliefs in the world for a long time. Even after discovering this, I just thought that they were choosing wrong. There was only one True™ God in my mind. I still think that there is only God but it is universal regardless of what people believe about it. No one can claim it to be theirs exclusively.

 

It's a mind-game that creates either my way or no way kind of deal.

[Nihil]

why couldn't the addy have been Tentpitcher.org?

[Ouroboros]

Hans, I remember thinking along those lines also. Afterall, when one understands that the God of the bible is the only God there is, then any other belief is equal to being an atheist. Ignorance claims a whole lot of sanity, but it is innocent to some. I didn't know there was any other beliefs in the world for a long time. Even after discovering this, I just thought that they were choosing wrong. There was only one True™ God in my mind. I still think that there is only God but it is universal regardless of what people believe about it. No one can claim it to be theirs exclusively.

 

It's a mind-game that creates either my way or no way kind of deal.

I have a hard time understanding that view. Paul is making it clear in his letters that he was a fundamentalist Jew, following the law and the teachings from the Torah. I don't know any Atheist that would follow a religious system based on a Monotheistic belief and then the person completely disbelieve in the same idea.

 

What's strange is that I can't figure out who really said it in the post. The second poster is making this statement in a quote. But it sounds like the person that is quoted used to be an Atheist, before becoming a Christian, so he/she would not be completely uninformed what an Atheist is, or even be ignorant of other worldviews. Very strange...

[NotBlinded]

Hans, I remember thinking along those lines also. Afterall, when one understands that the God of the bible is the only God there is, then any other belief is equal to being an atheist. Ignorance claims a whole lot of sanity, but it is innocent to some. I didn't know there was any other beliefs in the world for a long time. Even after discovering this, I just thought that they were choosing wrong. There was only one True™ God in my mind. I still think that there is only God but it is universal regardless of what people believe about it. No one can claim it to be theirs exclusively.

 

It's a mind-game that creates either my way or no way kind of deal.

I have a hard time understanding that view. Paul is making it clear in his letters that he was a fundamentalist Jew, following the law and the teachings from the Torah. I don't know any Atheist that would follow a religious system based on a Monotheistic belief and then the person completely disbelieve in the same idea.

 

What's strange is that I can't figure out who really said it in the post. The second poster is making this statement in a quote. But it sounds like the person that is quoted used to be an Atheist, before becoming a Christian, so he/she would not be completely uninformed what an Atheist is, or even be ignorant of other worldviews. Very strange...

Logic doesn't apply to areas of faith.

 

I was one of those atheists. When I found out that God wasn't the Christian God (in a literal sense), I rejected it all. If is wasn't that God, then all of them were wrong. I was still in a fundamental mindset. I was here at that time. I wonder how many here has become an athiest by dismissing the faith they believed in? I don't know...I can only speak for myself. It wasn't until about a year ago that I realized that it isn't an either or situation. I can reject one or all beliefs, but still hold a belief in God. Amazing what indoctrination can do to someone.

 

They may be an atheist as I was?? I knew what an atheist was, yet I was unable to separate the idea of god from the beliefs.

[Ouroboros]

So you were not a True Atheist™ then...

[NotBlinded]

So you were not a True Atheist™ then...

That is very true statement!

[NotBlinded]

Hans, what I'm really trying to say is relative to this quote:

 

"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you."

 

In this instance, I am an atheist. I don't believe in the literal god of Abraham, the god of Zeus, the god of Islam, etc... I am a religious, anthropomorphic atheist. But, I'm not an atheist. Does that make sense?

[Ouroboros]

No, I understand. It's like equating Infidel with Atheist. i.e. "anyone that don't believe in my god, is an Atheist to me." I just find it really hard to understand a Christian or Non-Christian considered Paul an Atheist. It's like saying the Atheism just means Non-Belief of any kind. i.e. "I'm an Atheist to Santa Claus."

[NotBlinded]

No, I understand. It's like equating Infidel with Atheist. i.e. "anyone that don't believe in my god, is an Atheist to me." I just find it really hard to understand a Christian or Non-Christian considered Paul an Atheist. It's like saying the Atheism just means Non-Belief of any kind. i.e. "I'm an Atheist to Santa Claus."

That is messed up!

[Ouroboros]

Did I mess it up even more?

[Lycorth]

Tentmaker.org?

 

Sounds like a porn site

 

[brad_religion]

Hi, here are some more excerpts from my posts at that forum.

 

Excerpt #4 -

 

quote author=MorningStar link=topic=2442.msg34317#msg34317 date=1155193091]

There is no proof as to God's existence. That is why faith does not rest on logical proof, but upon the grace of God who gives it to whom he will.

???

 

no proof?

 

what do we call Creation then?

 

anybody...please MAKE me a blade of grass..or even better...one living cell...just one...don't clone it, make it

 

God leaves His signature everywhere...who else can do what He does? Whoever or whatever you perceive Him to be...He was and is and will be everywhere!

 

MorningStar :

 

Using the Jeopardy default is not going to work in the real world, in real debates. You are giving the answer in your question. "what do we call Creation then?" is clearly a preconceived answer you are constructing. You are assuming that everything is the result of a creation from an intelligent being (because it is what you BELIEVE, not what you KNOW).

 

Morningstar, I could ask you a similar question when it comes to Santa Claus. I could say "anybody....please MAKE me a sled that can travel at the speed of Santa's sleigh, which reaches millions of homes in one night...or even better...one sack of presents which has an endless supply of gifts...don't buy them at Toys R Us, make them."

 

Santa leaves his signature everywhere....who else can do what he does? He is also "everywhere".

 

You can make any ridiculous claim you wish, that does not somehow "prove" it is true. I suggest you learn what "circular logic" is before you attempt to discuss your "evidence".

 

You can substitute "God" with any number of the thousands of deities which are worshipped by people today and in the past. Does saying that "creation" is proof of Zeus considered a good response? Why is saying the same thing about the biblegod any better? It isn't. I suggest you read the contradictory creation stories found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. They are clearly mythological, and have no validity to them. Might as well say Adam was created from a bowel movement of a dinosaur. No wonder you are lacking in intelligence, you believe you came from DIRT (if you believe the bible's 2nd creation story). If you believe the words of Jesus in the bible, you believe you are a dumb animal (a sheep, which christians are proud to say about themselves). If I thought I was made from dirt by a magical sky daddy and thought I was a dumb animal, I might believe the same way you do.

 

 

 

Excerpt #5 (email sent by person who read my posts)

 

 

Hi Gill, I appreciate you writing, and I will try to respond to your points.

 

You said : "Hi Brad,

Hope you don't mind me emailing ~ newbies at Tentmaker aren't allowed pm functions at this time. I thought it best to email privately as I didn't want to embarrass you in regards to your struggle expressed earlier this year. I read through your previous posts at Tentmaker and noticed the last couple in January. In one of your January posts, you said that you were basically considering atheism because it was 'simpler' than believing in God. That the realities of this world were too much to believe that God really is sovereign and love, and therefore doesn't exist. I can certainly empathise with some of your feelings there. (please excuse my brevity. I'm certainly not trivialising your thoughts ~ it's to prevent me from waffling)"

 

Response : I would not feel embarrassed for having a discussion on a forum. My "struggle" was based upon frustration at hearing one thing, but seeing another thing in all forms of christianity. However, the reason I said "atheism is simpler" is because there isn't all this concern or worry about things that have no proof for them. If we are more concerned about this life, than some imaginary afterlife, we will try to make this world a better place before we die (or at least I would). Actually, after I said that, I began to check out deism, which is pretty much atheism-esque, with belief in a first cause being the only major difference. However, it still had some flaws of logic (the watchmaker argument). But, I definitely enjoy talking with deists and other freethinkers who might not be atheists. They are very open minded and could care less about "preaching the gospel" of their particular views on everyone else. However, I became an atheist, not because I was "hurt", nor because it was only simpler. I became an atheist because I simply began to examine the bible and christianity the same way I had examined all religions I rejected when I was a christian. I began to use rational thought to leave the church, not irrational.

As far as the realities of this world showing there is no loving, sovereign god, that makes perfect sense to reject such a god's existence. I simply looked at the bible's claims about the biblegod and then realized for such a god to exist, the reality we have today would be far different.

 

You said : "Taking a good honest look at the horrors in this age were for a time, a stumbling block to my own faith (even after discovering UR). And also the gruesome OT accounts. God's plan of salvation certainly ain't a fuzzy. I became angry at God too, thinking that, quite frankly, I could have come up with a better plan if I were God ... why should anyone have to suffer at all etc. "

Response : Firstly, I am not "angry" at your god anymore than you would be "angry" at Zeus or Santa Claus. The anger I had and still have, is not at the non-existent idea of others, but that they use that non-existent idea to LIE to others. And if you can come up with a better plan than the biblegod, then you have more love and compassion that it does (and that should show you that whoever invented such a god was obviously not as loving as you are). The biblegod's gruesome OT accounts clearly conflict with any measure of "love" that you may think it has. The word love doesn't mean anything unless it is accompianied by actions which demonstrate it. I'm not talking about the whole "dead jew on a stick" stuff, I'm talking about helping people who need help and not discriminating it (yet, reality shows that such discriminations do exist). Any god that says it will smear shit on your face and it will kill your children is not a god that loves you.

 

You said : "You seem pretty well read on scripture (from your posts), and I didn't read through them all, but I was wondering if you've ever read up on the purpose for evil in this world and just why its a part of the plan? The same goes for understanding the hard to accept OT accounts (which I'm less clear on but I've heard some interesting points of view)."

Response : I am well read on scripture (18 years of christianity). You are of course assuming that "evil" is a noun (like a force). Evil is an adjective, just as good is an adjective. Things are defined as "good" or "evil" based on the actions used. For example, we would consider rape to be "evil". If it is evil, then it is evil whether people do it, or whether a deity does it. Yet, christians will blame people for doing the very same things their god does. The people are "evil", and their god remains "good", no matter what they believe it does or does not do. The question is, do you define "good" and "evil" based on actions and words, or do you base it on the default "if God does it, it is good no matter what"?

 

You said : "I'll leave it there for now. I don't want to be a bother, and you may well have already read and understood these things but found them too difficult to accept. I just couldn't help but feel sad at seeing your posts pre-January to reading your current posts (don't take that as patronising ...its heartfelt, as I think I can understand some of the struggle you were going through). I just couldn't help wondering if you'd already looked into these things, as understanding the purpose of evil in particular, was essential to me in believing the good news. I sincerely hope others are offering some advice too.

Anyway, take care,

Gill"

Response : To say the christian faith or the bible offer "good news" is about as truthful as saying Hitler had "good news" for jewish people. You have to use selective observation when reading the bible. You will read the parts of the bible you really like and the parts you don't like (such as the gruesome OT accounts), you may try to justify (since the biblegod does it). Or you may allegorize passages in order to eliminate an obvious contradiction (I know I did that often). Don't feel sad for me, because I am much happier and more fulfilled now as an atheist. I no longer have the burden of worrying about an afterlife. I can feel vindicated in fighting back people who would cause me harm, instead of trying to please some invisible sky daddy by going against my natural survival mechanism. I don't worry about offending people who don't agree with me anymore. My wife and I are much happier together ever since I became an atheist. She had accepted me as a christian, while she was a closet atheist. That goes to show that atheists are much more accepting of non-atheists than christians are of non-christians (not saying you are like that of course).

 

 

 

Well, thanks for writing,

 

Matt

 

 

 

Excerpt #6 -

 

 

Morningstar said:

 

"yo bad religion...your analogy of creation vs santa claus is really dumb...jeapordy default?

 

I'm talking about "the real" world...not about your world where santa lives...again, mr man...make me a blade of grass..

oh...you can't? then who does that?

 

who formed the universe...each planet in perfect orbit?

was it santa again? or the "big bang"?

and if it was the "big bang"...where did the material and energy come from to make the big bang happen?

 

okay...in all your years on earth (however long or short) have you never noticed that certain things can't be made by humans?

best we can do is clone...and without real success so far

 

and thats just the physical side of it

 

I guess I know there is a God cause He changed my life through His Holy Spirit...I'm living proof...if you knew me before, you'd know"

 

 

Morningstar, why is my analogy "really dumb"? Both are fairy tales. Both are religious ideas. Both use magical explanations for things which science and logic can explain. Both are superstitions which childish people believe. Once again, asking "who" formed the universe as if it is a fact that some intelligent design took place. That would be like asking "Well, who flies around and gives all those christian kids their christmas presents?". And where do you have the idea that planets are in "perfect" orbit? What is your definition of "perfect" in that example? I find it interesting you ask me "where did the material and energy come from to make the big bang happen?", yet I never mentioned the big bang. And what does the big bang have to do with a blade of grass? By the way, you can SEE the big bang still happening (the universe which is expanding). You cannot SEE any god, including the biblegod doing anything. Also, if I cannot explain where matter and energy came from to cause the big bang, does that somehow prove that creationism is true? Of course it doesn't, but in your mind, it would. I would like you to explain where the matter and energy came from (using the scientific method) as you are asking me to do. You cannot anymore than I can. The difference is I don't care whether the big bang happened, and you do. Since we were not around when it happened, the best answers we have are forensic. Just as if you were to come to a crime scene, you could figure out what happened even if you were not there when it occurred. But to foolishly say "God did it" is not actually explaining it. It is a weak minded and irrational conclusion to reach.

 

 

You "guess" you know there is a god? Does that mean you aren't really sure? Actually, for you to "know" there is a god, you would have to know everything in the universe (the same response from people who say in order to know there is not a god, you have to know everything in the universe). You cannot KNOW there is a god if you have faith in that god. To know something means you have evidence for it and it can be examined, tested, investigated, etc. You cannot do that with a god or the supernatural (hence the word super-natural). If you claim you KNOW there is a god, then you are a faithless and dishonest christian (among many I have met). You say that you know there is a god because "he" changed your life. Well, that is what many believers use as proof, yet people who convert to islam or buddhism or other religious faiths have similar life changes, does that mean they have "proof" their gods and religions are true? Don't you see your double standard? You probably believe buddhists, muslims and hindus and witches are believing in FALSE gods, and you wouldn't use their "I know my god is real, because it has changed my life" as proof for their beliefs; yet you say such a thing proves your beliefs are true. It is no more proof that your god is real, than a child who behaves (changes their life) because they believe Santa will give them more presents for christmas.

 

Grow up already

[NotBlinded]

Did I mess it up even more?

No...not you silly! The poster claiming Paul was an Atheist. That is messed up. It does clarify it in his/her mind though. If you hated Christians and wanted to persecute them, then you were an Atheist because Christians have the Truth™. It is not purposeful though I don't think. It's just a lack of understanding.

 

Like we were discussing ealier...this poster, in this sense, is also an Atheist because Allah hasn't revealed himself to him/her yet. Where is the crazy-eyes....oh here it is!

 

This is what I was alluding to in my other posts. I wonder how many Atheists and Theists hold to this notion of Atheism? It is reflected in the quote that I posted that says, "I contend that we are both Atheists..." This is also saying that God belongs to a religion.

 

What is happening here is that a step is being left out. The true True™ god doesn't belong to a religion. I don't know if there really is one (or more), but we have no way of knowing. I can only be a Christian Atheist or an Islamic Atheist if Theist is meant to be a believer in a specific god/s, but this isn't so easily understood, IMO, by both Atheists and Theists.

 

I remember Mr. Neil trying to show how the term agnostic was not meaningful because the term atheist just means that they won't believe until proof is put before them. It's basically the same as agnostic. I enjoyed that discussion. It's not that they can't believe, it's that they have no proof to believe. It is redundant to use the term agnostic in this sense.

 

But, when it comes to the gods of religions it can be disproved on the basis of logic and reason. In this case, many do claim to be Atheists because they reject those specific god/s. I just wonder how many stop there and don't think about that there might be something else. Something, that in all honesty, one can only claim to be agnostic.

 

Brad says this in his response to a PM:

 

However, I became an atheist, not because I was "hurt", nor because it was only simpler. I became an atheist because I simply began to examine the bible and christianity the same way I had examined all religions I rejected when I was a christian. I began to use rational thought to leave the church, not irrational.

As far as the realities of this world showing there is no loving, sovereign god, that makes perfect sense to reject such a god's existence. I simply looked at the bible's claims about the biblegod and then realized for such a god to exist, the reality we have today would be far different.

 

I don't wish to pick on you brad because you are doing great logically eating them up, but I am wondering if you are also an Atheist by way of religion? I know you mentioned Deism, but rejected that also. This is where the term agnostic and atheist becomes blurred, IMO. What is the difference in the terms here if when presented evidence to the contrary, you would become a Deist? And, if we did all have evidence, would we then all be Gnostics?

 

So, if Atheist means without Theism and Theism means a religious decription of a god/s, then Atheist is would seem to be the term to use, as many do. Such as the poster that said Paul was an Atheist. But, if Theism means a belief in a non-specific god/s, then I would think Agnostic would be a better term to use.

[Ouroboros]

No...not you silly! The poster claiming Paul was an Atheist.

Phew. Thanks. I know the paragraph didn't make complete sense, and I blame the 12 stitches (or more correctly nowadays they use staples! Ka-thunk... ouch... ka-thunk... ouch again...) in my head from the little pool accident during the weekend. Had to spend a couple of hours in the ER. No biggie though. Head still works... sqrxt... kind of... bllrblr.. no biggie... oh I already said that...

[NotBlinded]

No...not you silly! The poster claiming Paul was an Atheist.

Phew. Thanks. I know the paragraph didn't make complete sense, and I blame the 12 stitches (or more correctly nowadays they use staples! Ka-thunk... ouch... ka-thunk... ouch again...) in my head from the little pool accident during the weekend. Had to spend a couple of hours in the ER. No biggie though. Head still works... sqrxt... kind of... bllrblr.. no biggie... oh I already said that...

Oh man! You're not supposed to jump off the house into the pool because you can get hurt.

 

Really...I hope you're okay. That had to hurt!

[Ouroboros]

NBBTB, I jumped in the pool, and when I came up I was too close to the edge, and the pool have a ledge coming out from one of its steps, with a sharp edge, and *boom*! I was glad I didn't faint or got a concussion. Wonderful finish on a calm Saturday night.

[brad_religion]

Here is some more from that forum.

 

 

You said :" Peace,

 

Well I certainly disagree with this, that God cannot be tested. There are many ways to test God. If I may use you, Brad Religion, if you would be willing to put yourself to the test of this. Since you only trust yourself. I make the claim as true, that you can learn all that science has to teach, and apply it to your life, and see what that does to you. Now, conversely, if then learn all there is to know about God and apply it to your life, you will experience a marked change in life and life style, something scientific knowledge wouldnot do yo you. Science is an imperfect knowledge which offers no child rearing skills, no inner relative skills at gaining peace with other country's, no guidance as to how to improve a marriage, no help in understanding what evil is, no inroads to help one deal with the urge of lust and its effect on human nature. It cannot help you get along with your neighbor. Gods way is a permanent truth administered to an imperfect people."

 

Response : You are assuming of course that learning about the biblegod will make a positive change in people's lives. While that might be true of some, it is untrue for many others (including myself). I became a WORST person as I grew in christianity's cult. The maze of religious confusion is clearly an indicator there is no divine being in control of people's lives or beliefs. And scientific knowledge does and has shown me more about life (because they can explain things that religious people cannot). I would ask you to please define "imperfect" when applying it to science. Scientists have never claimed science is perfect and never will (because the whole purpose of science is to explain what we didn't know before with evidence and to be self-correcting). Scientists never claim that "child rearing", "inner relativism", "gaining peace with other countries", "improving marriage", etc is what science is meant to do. Although, one can find that using the scientific method with those issues will ultimately bring forth a proper conclusion about what works and what doesn't work (which is what science is, trial and error). The difference is that the bible and the biblegod claim the absurd things you say scientists claim about science (being perfect, proper child rearing, etc), yet the very opposite extreme is the case (not only in the bible, but those who follow it). There are sciences that deal with human behaviour, which has helped a vast number of people since they began (such as sociology, psychology, paleontology, etc). I find it ironic that those who believe in a god (and especially the christian god) commit more crimes and have more divorces and go to jail for child abuse and molesting than non-believers do. If what you say is true, then the opposite should be true (the non-believer should have more problems with those issues you listed). So, you are fine with bearing false witness against those who don't believe in your god. That shows that people like yourself are perfectly okay with LYING to save some egg on your face. I suggest you study what SCIENCE is before you pretend you know what it teaches.

 

 

You said : "God magnifies any investment made into him by any search that is true. Science offers no personal relationship with those who invest in it. You cannot grant science access to your heart. More and more on the surface, science is making inroads into head knowledge, more and more we are seeing that humanity's real problems are not our head knowledge, but our morals, our heart issues. Science cannot teach our youth not to rob and kill. It offers little help in strengthening their characther to say know to drugs. I wouldnot base zero percent of our children's moral future on science. This world is so far gone, that its only hope is God, to die and gain salvation in the resurrection."

 

Response : There is not anything I could say to you that will convince you that it is all in your head. Because you are so weak minded, you cannot be reasoned with anymore. You make absolute statements for which you have not offered any evidence for me to examine. You keep saying "science" can't do a bunch of things which you think a religion can offer. However, like I said firstly, religion has typically claimed the most "perfect" skills when it comes to the things you mentioned, yet the opposite is true, and those who use the scientific method in those types of fields of human behaviour have exhibited better skills at it. I find your lack of understanding basic scientific study appalling. You claim that science is not moral, yet you have been behaving immorally by LYING about what science is and what it is meant to do. And as far as morality, like I said, it is the bible followers who have the problem, not the ones who don't believe in it. You should really look at some statistics of the prison population, where 2/3 of the prisoners are from a christian background of some type. And what has christianity done to "teach our youth not to rob and kill"? Not only has it not done that, it almost never works. That is why many soldiers who go to war are christians who volunteer (they will most likely be killing people). Christianity is a blood cult plain and simple. The only knowledge one has is in their head. The whole concept of the "heart" having the ability to do anything with information (heart knowledge) is an ancient superstition that the heart was where all emotions existed. We know now, THANKS TO SCIENCE, that it is not the heart that absorbs information (knowledge) and exhibit emotions, it is the brain (which is never mentioned in the bible, hmmmm).

 

As far as I can tell, you have no knowledge of anything worthwhile. You are in a cult and you behave just like a member of a cult. You attack anyone who doesn't agree with you and you hate science. This is not new or unique. People like yourself have constantly thought religion is morally superior to science, yet when put in the light of REALITY, it appears religion falls short of having any morality of any kind, where science uses a proper way to see what works and what doesn't. Apparently you have not gotten the messaage that religion does NOT WORK for morality. And how is the world "so far gone"? I think the world is much better than it used to be (we still have work to do, but it is getting better thanks to SCIENCE). There are not as many diseases as there used to be because of SCIENCE. You can pray all you want, I'll go to my doctor and get rid of an illness with medicine and vitamins. Things such as : slavery, sexism, homophobia, women's rights, child abuse, child labor, racism, censorship, etc have been abolished in places they used to thrive. Was it because of religion or because of those who were free thinkers (who believed in using science?). It was without a doubt those who were NOT religious. Does that mean those things don't exist anymore? No. But given that science has had only about 150 years to have free reign in its progress, I would say it has done more for humanity than ANY god ever invented in people's minds. It has done more to stop sickness than any messiah could ever have done. It has done more to feed the world's population through genetic processing of plants and crops to make bigger yields than Jesus ever did in that absurd story. Science has done much MORE to help humanity in the last 150 years than christianity ( or any other religion) has done in 2000 years or longer. So, I would say you are very wrong about the world being "so far gone". Any demise of our advancement has been solely due to religion or some insane ideology, but especially christianity, who has fought science and social reform almost at every turn. Eventually, christianity embraced those things, because they realized they would be in the shadow of them if they didn't support them, which is why many christians today are NOT against science as you are.

 

 

You said : "The argument of creation vs. science, is like a rocking chair, it gives you something to do, but doesn't get you anywhere. If your going to dedicate yourself to something, take the best both worlds has to offer, don't shut out science or God. Look around you at the worlds events, the human mind is now mismatched for the society it has created, and science is not the answer to that very real problem. The responsibility's we have now, are directly related to the bible, I don't see how any rational mind cannot deduce this. A real look at the world, can only come away with the world having a " Spiritual" problem. When the grievance is genuine, the problem real, but no scientific solution presents itself, the problem is Spiritual.

 

We need the Spiritual ingredient, not just the scientific."

 

Response : Actually, it is more like a trash can and I threw out the garbage (creationism) and am using the best thing we have to know how the world and universe work. I never dedicated myself to anything other than rational thought. It's interesting, at first you begin attacking science as being morally inferior and having basically no validity compared to religion, and now you are saying "don't shut out science or God". Just make up your mind already instead of contradicting yourself (another clear indication you are in a cult). And regarding society, which society are you referring to? Many societies are run or associate with a specific religious tradition (christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, etc). I agree, the human mind is mismatched when it comes to those types of societies, because they basically create policies that are based on irrational superstitions (national day of prayer, forcing ramadan on everyone, etc). Like I said, science has given more answers (that is what science does, but it uses evidence which is tested to do so) than any religion has. Giving an answer doesn't mean it is correct. What makes an answer correct is whether it can be proven or not. And no religion has yet proven their answer is the right one. At least scientists explain things step by step on whatever their theorem is. The rational mind knows the bible is bunk because they know a book with scientific errors, contradictions, ancient myths, absurd claims, mythological creatures, etc cannot be believed. The problems we have today are related to the bible or the quran. They are the cause of the problem. A real look at the world merely shows that religion has caused more harm on humanity than any other ideology known to man. And it is still happening to this day (you are a perfect example). I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror before you say everyone ELSE has a spiritual problem. Your problem is not spiritual, it is a matter of observation. You selectively observe the world with a bias of religion, and anything that doesn't fit that model is "evil" to you. Yet, historically and currently, your model is the REAL problem.

 

Since you are constantly lying in almost every sentence you type, I think this will be my last address to you (because it is impossible to reason with an unreasonable person). I just want to correct your lies against science, so others in the forum don't fall for your anti-science ranting.

 

 

Grow up already

 

 

Just wanted to correct, I was tired when I was writing this last reponse, and I foolishly said "paleontology" was a study of human behavior. Just correcting my post, I forgot to edit it.

[KT45]

Why do you think universalist stay in the religion if there is no fear of hell? And why don't the question other parts of their theology instead of questioning the parts they don't like?

[brad_religion]

Why do you think universalist stay in the religion if there is no fear of hell? And why don't the question other parts of their theology instead of questioning the parts they don't like?

 

They basically invent a new god, but still say it is the biblegod. They turn the biblegod into a "loving father" in spite of his behavior in the entire bible. They simply make excuses for the behavior of the biblegod and say it is all part of his plan. They stay in the religion, because they believe "god" is a loving being who wants us all to love each other, which isn't so bad, but there are so few of them in the world, I doubt that it would influence mainstream christianity for good.