God's Mighty Plan Of Salvation

[Ravenstar]

I disagree that faith is accepting an idea with out questioning it.

 

I posted months ago about how I questioned the Christian faith in my 20s and read every book on other religions and books by atheists I could find. I also posted when I first came to this forum how I was encouraged by my parents to question everything...including my Christian faith.

 

You sir, are a liar.

 

​You are barely able to quote others correctly, and fail often… you can not form your own cogent arguments, you do not comprehend logical fallacies or even basic logical constructs. There is NO way in hades that you have read what is out there… not on other religions, philosophy or atheism. If you had you would be a much better conversationalist. I will grant you the token that you do seem more literate than a lot of visitors we get… but just barely - your comprehension skills are poor at best.

 

​You know next to nothing about other religions… that is apparent. Considering the wealth of religious writings out there I doubt you have even been alive long enough to give them any real consideration. Googling a summary of comparative religion is NOT honest investigation.

 

I'm a bookworm and I am probably quite a bit older than you and I have barely scraped the philosophers. I am also more than able to admit that although I have read a fair amount of other religious texts I am by no means familiar with them to the point I would like to be, I am no religious scholar - nor could I deconstruct them to the point of writing them off altogether (except in very basic ways.. commonalities), yet I would bet my grandma's tit I know WAY more than you do about them.

 

Your science knowledge is elementary… somewhere around grade 3 or 4.

 

Stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

Go travel a bit and get out of your bubble...

[ironhorse]

 

I disagree that faith is accepting an idea with out questioning it.

 

I posted months ago about how I questioned the Christian faith in my 20s and read every book on other religions and books by atheists I could find. I also posted when I first came to this forum how I was encouraged by my parents to question everything...including my Christian faith.

 

You sir, are a liar.

 

​You are barely able to quote others correctly, and fail often… you can not form your own cogent arguments, you do not comprehend logical fallacies or even basic logical constructs. There is NO way in hades that you have read what is out there… not on other religions, philosophy or atheism. If you had you would be a much better conversationalist. I will grant you the token that you do seem more literate than a lot of visitors we get… but just barely - your comprehension skills are poor at best.

 

​You know next to nothing about other religions… that is apparent. Considering the wealth of religious writings out there I doubt you have even been alive long enough to give them any real consideration. Googling a summary of comparative religion is NOT honest investigation.

 

I'm a bookworm and I am probably quite a bit older than you and I have barely scraped the philosophers. I am also more than able to admit that although I have read a fair amount of other religious texts I am by no means familiar with them to the point I would like to be, I am no religious scholar - nor could I deconstruct them to the point of writing them off altogether (except in very basic ways.. commonalities), yet I would bet my grandma's tit I know WAY more than you do about them.

 

Your science knowledge is elementary… somewhere around grade 3 or 4.

 

Stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

Go travel a bit and get out of your bubble...

 

 

 

"You know next to nothing about other religions… that is apparent. Considering the wealth of religious writings out there I doubt you have even been alive long enough to give them any real consideration. Googling a summary of comparative religion is NOT honest investigation."

 

 

Again I will post, I spent a lot of time in my early twenties in college reading every book I could on the religions of the world.

And again I will post, my parents taught me and encourage me to question everything...including the christian faith.

[Roz]

Why is your religion any more credible than other religions and other denominations?  If you use the bible to start proving why your bible is true, that's the end of the line.

[ironhorse]

Why is your religion any more credible than other religions and other denominations?  If you use the bible to start proving why your bible is true, that's the end of the line.

 

I don't view my Christian faith as a religion

 

My faith is in Christ, not a religion or denomination.

 

Proving the Bible is true?

 

I can't do that for you.  

[Roz]

 

Why is your religion any more credible than other religions and other denominations?  If you use the bible to start proving why your bible is true, that's the end of the line.

 

I don't view my Christian faith as a religion

 

My faith is in Christ, not a religion or denomination.

 

Proving the Bible is true?

 

I can't do that for you.  

 

 

In other words you can't show the research you did that proved to you that your religion (it's a religion) is more credible than any other faith.

[Ravenstar]

re·li·gion  noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

 

 

 

Full Definition of RELIGION

1

a :  the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year ofreligion>

 

b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural(2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness

4

:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

— re·li·gion·less adjective

 

Examples of RELIGION

1. Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
2. There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
3. Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.
4. Hockey is a religion in Canada.
5. Politics are a religion to him.
6. Where I live, high school football is religion.
7. Food is religion in this house.

Origin of RELIGION

Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latinreligion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely

First Known Use: 13th century

Related to RELIGION

Synonyms credo, creed, cult, faith, persuasion Antonyms atheism, godlessness

Related Words church, communion, denomination, sect; doctrine, dogma,theology; deism, heathenism, monotheism, paganism,pantheism, polytheism, theism

 

Near Antonyms agnosticism, know-nothingism; atheism, godlessness,nonbelief, secularism, unbelief

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've asked you before what you knew about other religions.. you failed. If you did read… you didn't understand them… and you did not read the original texts because a lot of them are very complicated and vast (Hindu especially)… as well as not that easy to comprehend, for various reasons.

 

Seriously, name ONE religious text other than the Torah or Bible that you are familiar with.  Just one. You show a decided lack of scholarship with your own Bible… how are we to believe your claim that you have investigated others?

 

You can restate them same bullshit over and over.. you have not yet demonstrated the extensive knowledge that you claim to have. I do not believe you.. I think you lie.

[SpaceWrangler]

 

 

Clean and unclean

 

What we see is more likely at least 2 stories interwoven. The first was likely stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh and was written as 2x2. The second was written later by priests and included the 7 clean. No where before was there any clean or unclean. It is not even revealed why Cain and able sacrificed. Cain gave him fruits of the ground. Did this make god angry? He never says why, just that he doesn't like cains. But Abel gives the first of his flock and the fat. Fat tastes good! So god (priests) liked his. It would appear that god only wants meat or that Cain did not bring his best fruits. Strangely it never says why.

 

So clean and unclean probably came about in around 500bce when Ezra, Josiah et al "found" the first 5 books then proceeded to write the priestly rules to back up their wants and needs.

 

Cain offered his sacrifice without faith.

 

Abel offered his in faith.

Where do you get that from?

 

So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭3-7‬ NASB)

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Why is it so hard for non-believers to be ok with not knowing?

I don't know.

 

Have noticed over the years here that somexians have seemingly placed a religious-like emphasis on knowingbelief in god......I expect for their own security. I don't condemn those, rather feel a little empathetic. I don't think it brings real peace....it can't.

 

I fixed that for you

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

I am unique, IH, you, TRP, we are all unique....if not by production, then certainly by circumstance. Why should we read and understand everything the same? Even the Bible suggests it's a process and not an event. Even Paul asks himself why he does the things he does. This is not an irrational set of thoughts.

 

That is precisely the point as to why TRP, BAA, myself, and other non believers are varying in our views.  There's no 1 faith, 1 hope, 1 baptism shared between us.  We are all freethinkers in that we have no sets of dogma we imposed on ourselves.

 

Yet christians DO.  You have 1 faith, 1 hope, 1 baptism, and you all claim that "¹⁶ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

 

This is why morality comes into play.  Your god in your scripture ordered atrocities and they were committed by his own people.  It is recorded in your book.  Now, if we were to take your book as "god-breathed" then what is the reason he killed children? 

 

This is why I asked you these questions some time ago, I've also asked them to Gus, IH, and other christians.  You all hold onto a set of beliefs that recorded all of these things, and all of you claim that nothing can budge you from it.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I hold no belief sacred.  It is to be tested against evidence and reason.  If the idea I hold doesn't pass muster, then it is discarded, whatever it is.  Beyond that, I am comfortable with the answer of "I don't know."

 

I gave you a guess....genetics. Watching the PM of Israel this morning. He was stating that that "group" (Hezbollah), of people have NO ability to believe any other way than to kill the Jewish people. Is this the same reasoning God used? I don't know Roz. It's speculation on my part. To summarize, science says nature and nurture changes people in a way that won't revert back for generations. So what happens when you impose multiple generations with this same set of behaviors? Revert back to what?, and when? It's a damn difficult concept that mixes morality and science and speculation. I don't know the final answer, but I can see how they may possibly relate to each other. Same set of speculation with the "translations/definitions" of heaven and universe and multiverse. Don't shoot me, it's just the connections my mind makes....

 

 

This quote could just as easily be turned around to say the leader of Hezbollah stated that Israelis have "no ability" to believe any other way than to kill the Palestinian people.

 

The people living on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict do have the "ability" to stop wanting to kill each other, but only if they could be freed from their religion-based hatred.  Where does this ancient tribal murderous intent come from?  Your bible, End3.

 

This is an example of the way that religion* poisons everything.

 

*including xianity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

"Either way, why would animals not be afraid of the humans who were killing them, either for their own or their gods' consumption, until after the flood?"

 

If you mean why did the animals willingly enter the ark, here's my answer.

 

I live in a rural area in the South. There is no way I could go out and round up two of a kind of all the

critters that live in the woods.

 

I believe God instructed the animals to enter the ark.

I did not mean, "Why did the animals willingly enter the ark?" and you know perfectly well that is not what I meant.  I meant, "Why were the animals not already afraid of the humans who were killing them."

 

You are being supremely disingenuous, TinPony; and I am nearing the end of my patience with you.  Stop playing games and answer the fucking question or you and I are done.

 

Answer the question I asked you, Ironhorse, not the question you wanted me to ask.

[thereisnoperfect]

Ironhorse, name some of these books you read when you were questioning everything. You don't have to be exhaustive--just give us a few titles that you remember.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Ironhorse, name some of these books you read when you were questioning everything. You don't have to be exhaustive--just give us a few titles that you remember.

And keep in mind, we'll know if you just give us a list off of a google search.

[Gus]

 

 

Clean and unclean

 

What we see is more likely at least 2 stories interwoven. The first was likely stolen from the epic of Gilgamesh and was written as 2x2. The second was written later by priests and included the 7 clean. No where before was there any clean or unclean. It is not even revealed why Cain and able sacrificed. Cain gave him fruits of the ground. Did this make god angry? He never says why, just that he doesn't like cains. But Abel gives the first of his flock and the fat. Fat tastes good! So god (priests) liked his. It would appear that god only wants meat or that Cain did not bring his best fruits. Strangely it never says why.

 

So clean and unclean probably came about in around 500bce when Ezra, Josiah et al "found" the first 5 books then proceeded to write the priestly rules to back up their wants and needs.

 

Cain offered his sacrifice without faith.

 

Abel offered his in faith.

Where do you get that from?

 

So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭3-7‬ NASB)

 

I have to agree with Space Wrangler on this.

Going by the verse above, it was not a faith issue. It was most likely that Cain did not offer the 'first fruits' of his crop.

[Gus]

Gus,

 

I going to summarize a few of the claims you made in this thread and how you have dealt with them.  This is nothing personal.  It is simply a review of the actual evidence supporting my claim that you merely assert your subjective religious beliefs and when called to support those claims with evidence you fail to provide that evidence and simply repeat the mere assertions.

 

It starts with your earlier post in this thread (post #19) in which you made the following claim:

 

 

...

The cause of all sin was Satan, and Satan alone.

...

 

To support this claim you provided the following (again in post #19):

 

 

...

Lucifer was most likely sent to the garden to minster and care for Adam and Eve. He had not yet fallen.

If God put Adam and Eve in with the Devil as a dangerous adversary, it would be foolish.

But somewhere, Lucifer saw an opportunity to gain power. Knowing he could never take on God directly, he saw God give earth to Adam.

So he saw this as an opportunity to gain power by taking it from Adam. Hence why he is called the ‘prince of this earth’.

God could not just take it back, as it was legally satan’s now, and God does not go back on his word.

So Jesus had to come to take it back as a man, as it had been given to man.

...

 

Of course, this is not evidence.  It is merely a collection of more assertions and some subjective opinion.  More importantly, none of it deals with your original claim "The cause of all sin was Satan, and Satan alone."

 

Nevertheless, you conclude Post #19 with the following conclusion:

 

 

Lucifer, now Satan, is the author of the evil we see, not God.

 

Well, you may "see".  I fail to see any support for your claim.

 

After a few posters challenged you on this and a few other things, you stated, in Post #69:

 

 

...

I don’t really want to get into a battle over your points. I don’t agree with them myself (certainly not about the serpent not be Lucifer), but I wont argue the point further.

...

 

So, you won't discuss the challenge any further.  I guess that's because you wanted to return to simply making more claims (in post #69):

 

 

...

The Lord had given man total control over the earth. It was his to govern as he saw fit. Adam then yielded to Satan the power and authority God intended for man.

...

In an attempt to show that Satan is the sole creator of evil, you employ additional unsupported claims that are non-sequiturs.  How convincing.

 

But wait, it gets better.  In post #98, in response to a request for Biblical support of your claims, you stated the following:

 

 

...

I cannot provide you with a specific scripture from Genesis that says what you want it to, so if that is what you are looking for, sorry I cannot help and you are free to dismiss my theory.

...

 

OK, your claims are dismissed.  But not by you.  In an effort to support your claims that (i) Adam gave Satan power or (ii) Satan took that power from Adam (you make both claims), you provided the following "evidence" in Post # 98:

 

 

...

However, I don’t think you need to have one as there is evidence through the bible that this is the case.

On numerous occasions Satan is credited with having some authority and power over the earth. His biggest claim was to Jesus himself that he could give him authority as it had been given to him. Of course, this claim itself may not be true as Satan is called 'the father of lies', but what is interesting is that Jesus did not discredited it. More like, his claim was a truth, but giving it up was the lie.

There are also references to him as God of this earth, prince of this world and the prince of the power of the air.

Satan does not own the earth, which is Gods. But he has authority to wield huge influence (on people, government and any man made systems) and has some power to affect it physically.

…

Which isn't evidence at all, but simply another collection of claims and your subjective opinions.

 

Finally, in response to further questions about this, you stated the following (in Post #160):

 

 

...

I don’t know how the authority changed hands, but as you have suggested, some duplicitous means seems reasonable, that is certainly the character of Satan, also known as a deceiver.

 

You don't know how, but you are still certain of your claims.

 

Notice how none of this is support for your original claim, "The cause of all sin was Satan, and Satan alone."

Notice also that you provided no evidence for your subsequent claims.

 

In the world of rational and critical thinking, you have merely stated some of your personal religious beliefs.  You made several claims and failed to provide any relevant evidence to support them.  When challenged, you either refused to discuss the challenge or simply made more unsupported assertions.

 

You may wish to consider the effectiveness of your debating tactics.

Thanks for you feedback, and I don't take it personally.

 

To be fair I can see where you are coming from and where your frustration lies, but I did say in my opening statement that some of this is probably 'gusology' and we are discussing the themes of the topic, so yes granted some are personal beliefs but ones based on what I see in scripture and what I have read on the topic.

 

When I say that Satan is the author of evil, I feel there are enough scriptural examples in the bible to make that claim. But I don’t want to get into a scripture a battle, hence why I said to RNP that I don’t agree with all his points, but don't wish to argue them.

 

Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others.

I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Blasting off in my rocket ship day after tomorrow headed for the edge of the universe. My intent is to see the second heaven. Will send wave communication back on occasion. First think I have to accomplish is slingshot around Uranus....

 

Love to all,

 

End3

 

I hope you'll stick with me on this, so that we can resolve the issue of subjectivity vs. objectivity, End.

 

Let's not re-visit this, six months (or whenever) down the road, in another thread.

 

Let's deal with this asap, here in this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Sure, if I head off in my spaceship it becomes objective science...

 

Go home, End3; you're drunk.

 

No, just pointing out how asinine these conversations are with BAA and his need to control the discussion. He needs therapy worse than me.

 

Feel free to throw something out there relevant....

 

 

 

 

I must remind you that you are the one who wanted objectivity, End.

 

If you want it on your own terms, then it isn't objectivity any more.

But if you still want it, then you have to abide by the rules to get it and use it properly.  So, I'm not trying to control you.  I'm trying to help you understand and obtain something you've asked for.  I'm sorry if you don't like or can't accept the price that objectivity comes with.  I'm also sorry and saddened that you feel the need to call our conversations asinine.  Imho, neither of us needs therapy.  At least I don't think I do.  And your strong reaction to what I've said about objectivity you tells me that you're not in need of therapy either.

 

You're just feeling threatened.

When you realize that you should accept the sense of what's being explained to you, you get defensive and angry and react accordingly.  You either veer off into silliness (going off in your spaceship) or you get an attitude and start bad-mouthing me.  This time, both.  

 

That's ok.  I understand what's happening.

It's what the Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer called, 'the point of tension'.  It's the painful place that we find ourselves in when our deeply-held beliefs or assumptions are challenged.  It's the moment of truth, when we should break with the false ideas we've held to in our past, when we should drop them and when we should accept a new way of thinking.   We've all been thru 'point of tension' moments in our lives... so I can well relate to the inner turmoil you've experienced recently.

 

It's ok, End.  I reckon you understand all about objectivity and subjectivity.

You're not stupid and this isn't a case of me teaching you like a grade school kid.  Nope.  You know the score and when you write, "I don't see it" that's code for "I do see it, but I choose not to accept it."  It's not that you don't get it.  You get it all right.  You just can't accept it.

.

.

.

Once again, I'm sorry to make you defensive and angry, but I was honoring your request for objectivity.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Thackerie]

 

I disagree that faith is accepting an idea with out questioning it.

 

I posted months ago about how I questioned the Christian faith in my 20s and read every book on other religions and books by atheists I could find. I also posted when I first came to this forum how I was encouraged by my parents to question everything...including my Christian faith.

 

You sir, are a liar.

 

​You are barely able to quote others correctly, and fail often… you can not form your own cogent arguments, you do not comprehend logical fallacies or even basic logical constructs. There is NO way in hades that you have read what is out there… not on other religions, philosophy or atheism. If you had you would be a much better conversationalist. I will grant you the token that you do seem more literate than a lot of visitors we get… but just barely - your comprehension skills are poor at best.

 

​You know next to nothing about other religions… that is apparent. Considering the wealth of religious writings out there I doubt you have even been alive long enough to give them any real consideration. Googling a summary of comparative religion is NOT honest investigation.

 

I'm a bookworm and I am probably quite a bit older than you and I have barely scraped the philosophers. I am also more than able to admit that although I have read a fair amount of other religious texts I am by no means familiar with them to the point I would like to be, I am no religious scholar - nor could I deconstruct them to the point of writing them off altogether (except in very basic ways.. commonalities), yet I would bet my grandma's tit I know WAY more than you do about them.

 

Your science knowledge is elementary… somewhere around grade 3 or 4.

 

Stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

Go travel a bit and get out of your bubble...

 

 

^^ THIS ^^

 

I agree. Except, maybe there is a slight possibility that IH isn't intentionally lying; maybe he's that stupid that he actually thinks he's done honest research.

 

In any case, he really doesn't have anything new or of value to say, and he's getting rather boring. Ban him. Can him. Who really cares at this point?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

Blasting off in my rocket ship day after tomorrow headed for the edge of the universe. My intent is to see the second heaven. Will send wave communication back on occasion. First think I have to accomplish is slingshot around Uranus....

 

Love to all,

 

End3

 

I hope you'll stick with me on this, so that we can resolve the issue of subjectivity vs. objectivity, End.

 

Let's not re-visit this, six months (or whenever) down the road, in another thread.

 

Let's deal with this asap, here in this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Sure, if I head off in my spaceship it becomes objective science...

 

Go home, End3; you're drunk.

 

No, just pointing out how asinine these conversations are with BAA and his need to control the discussion. He needs therapy worse than me.

 

Feel free to throw something out there relevant....

 

 

 

 

I must remind you that you are the one who wanted objectivity, End.

 

If you want it on your own terms, then it isn't objectivity any more.

But if you still want it, then you have to abide by the rules to get it and use it properly.  So, I'm not trying to control you.  I'm trying to help you understand and obtain something you've asked for.  I'm sorry if you don't like or can't accept the price that objectivity comes with.  I'm also sorry and saddened that you feel the need to call our conversations asinine.  Imho, neither of us needs therapy.  At least I don't think I do.  And your strong reaction to what I've said about objectivity you tells me that you're not in need of therapy either.

 

You're just feeling threatened.

When you realize that you should accept the sense of what's being explained to you, you get defensive and angry and react accordingly.  You either veer off into silliness (going off in your spaceship) or you get an attitude and start bad-mouthing me.  This time, both.  

 

That's ok.  I understand what's happening.

It's what the Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer called, 'the point of tension'.  It's the painful place that we find ourselves in when our deeply-held beliefs or assumptions are challenged.  It's the moment of truth, when we should break with the false ideas we've held to in our past, when we should drop them and when we should accept a new way of thinking.   We've all been thru 'point of tension' moments in our lives... so I can well relate to the inner turmoil you've experienced recently.

 

It's ok, End.  I reckon you understand all about objectivity and subjectivity.

You're not stupid and this isn't a case of me teaching you like a grade school kid.  Nope.  You know the score and when you write, "I don't see it" that's code for "I do see it, but I choose not to accept it."  It's not that you don't get it.  You get it all right.  You just can't accept it.

.

.

.

Once again, I'm sorry to make you defensive and angry, but I was honoring your request for objectivity.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I'm not threatened. I gather people are miffed that the verse I just randomly picked was translated universe. The point is we will never ultimately know if there is another universe, or several. But, as I point out, if I were to take off in a ship, then I would be participating in science, i.e. an experiment.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

I am unique, IH, you, TRP, we are all unique....if not by production, then certainly by circumstance. Why should we read and understand everything the same? Even the Bible suggests it's a process and not an event. Even Paul asks himself why he does the things he does. This is not an irrational set of thoughts.

 

That is precisely the point as to why TRP, BAA, myself, and other non believers are varying in our views.  There's no 1 faith, 1 hope, 1 baptism shared between us.  We are all freethinkers in that we have no sets of dogma we imposed on ourselves.

 

Yet christians DO.  You have 1 faith, 1 hope, 1 baptism, and you all claim that "¹⁶ All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

 

This is why morality comes into play.  Your god in your scripture ordered atrocities and they were committed by his own people.  It is recorded in your book.  Now, if we were to take your book as "god-breathed" then what is the reason he killed children? 

 

This is why I asked you these questions some time ago, I've also asked them to Gus, IH, and other christians.  You all hold onto a set of beliefs that recorded all of these things, and all of you claim that nothing can budge you from it.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I hold no belief sacred.  It is to be tested against evidence and reason.  If the idea I hold doesn't pass muster, then it is discarded, whatever it is.  Beyond that, I am comfortable with the answer of "I don't know."

 

I gave you a guess....genetics. Watching the PM of Israel this morning. He was stating that that "group" (Hezbollah), of people have NO ability to believe any other way than to kill the Jewish people. Is this the same reasoning God used? I don't know Roz. It's speculation on my part. To summarize, science says nature and nurture changes people in a way that won't revert back for generations. So what happens when you impose multiple generations with this same set of behaviors? Revert back to what?, and when? It's a damn difficult concept that mixes morality and science and speculation. I don't know the final answer, but I can see how they may possibly relate to each other. Same set of speculation with the "translations/definitions" of heaven and universe and multiverse. Don't shoot me, it's just the connections my mind makes....

 

 

This quote could just as easily be turned around to say the leader of Hezbollah stated that Israelis have "no ability" to believe any other way than to kill the Palestinian people.

 

The people living on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict do have the "ability" to stop wanting to kill each other, but only if they could be freed from their religion-based hatred.  Where does this ancient tribal murderous intent come from?  Your bible, End3.

 

This is an example of the way that religion* poisons everything.

 

*including xianity.

 

Thinking the Hezbollah started throwing rocks first on this one.... or killing teenagers.

 

Religion-based hatred? Ha, I see how many peace-filled people reside here.

[Roz]

End3 dismisses all the atrocities of the bible, even though he's on record stating he will do as his god orders him to. 

 

He doesn't see the religious powder keg known as temple site / dome of the rock.  He may even adhere to the evangelical violence-porn that Kirk Cameron acted out in left behind. 

 

Remember, christian god glasses.  The religion's infallible. 

[Roz]

And as far as vitriol in this site, yeah, there's a lot of it, and it's mostly aimed at christianity (surprise surprise, it's an Ex-christian site...). 

 

Ouch, words hurled at christians sting, you're crying in the corner, you're being persecuted for your lord's sake! 

 

Meanwhile... real physical violence comes from religious countries.

 

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

I'm not threatened. I gather people are miffed that the verse I just randomly picked was translated universe. The point is we will never ultimately know if there is another universe, or several. But, as I point out, if I were to take off in a ship, then I would be participating in science, i.e. an experiment.

 

 

The act of taking off in a spaceship is not participating in science, nor is it an experiment.

 

Science and experiments can be performed on a spaceship, but simply being in one doesn't qualify as science.

 

To do science, you have to use the scientific method.

 

Which means putting aside your subjectivity and being objective, End. 

[Guest end3]

 

I'm not threatened. I gather people are miffed that the verse I just randomly picked was translated universe. The point is we will never ultimately know if there is another universe, or several. But, as I point out, if I were to take off in a ship, then I would be participating in science, i.e. an experiment.

 

The act of taking off in a spaceship is not participating in science, nor is it an experiment.

 

Science and experiments can be performed on a spaceship, but simply being in one doesn't qualify as science.

 

To do science, you have to use the scientific method.

 

Which means putting aside your subjectivity and being objective, End.

 

I give up BAA.....again. You're so obtuse it's not even worth discussing.

[Ravenstar]

BAA is right. You are currently using a computer, which science made possible.. this does not mean you are participating in a scientific experiment.

 

He is not being obtuse at all, but crystal clear and quite precise.

[Roz]

End3 calling BAA obtuse just reeks of irony
.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others.

 

 

I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about.

 

 

Gus, does it matter whether or not these ideas are true?